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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and 프라그마틱 불법 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯체험 메타 (Recommended Website) non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various aspects such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study utilized an DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

The central question in pragmatic research is: 프라그마틱 환수율 Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and affordances. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they might face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that employs deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

In a case study, 프라그마틱 사이트 the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.