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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has its drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.

Recent research used the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be accurate, 프라그마틱 순위 (www.Metooo.es) and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 라이브 카지노 the selections were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or 프라그마틱 무료게임 to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 프라그마틱 이미지 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools 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 L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that 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 identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relationship affordances. They also discussed, 프라그마틱 무료체험 for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's 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 in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.