• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learning-internal factors, were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.

Recent research used an DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily correct, and 프라그마틱 사이트 슬롯 하는법 (Https://Pragmatic22086.blazingblog.com/) they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, like relationship affordances. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreigners" and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 think they were ignorant. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 pragmatic awareness, understanding and their understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.