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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL for 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.

Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, 프라그마틱 사이트 and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding 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 the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 무료게임 (Thebookmarkking.Com) 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will help them 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 to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define both 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 broad knowledge of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached 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 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.