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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they had access to were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers understand 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 플레이 - learn this here now - turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

Recent research has used an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the 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 프라그마틱 무료 데모 (pragmatickrcom23455.Wikiannouncing.Com) 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored 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 in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought 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. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test korea 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 an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

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 test showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and perception of the world.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.