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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were important. For instance, 프라그마틱 불법 (sociallawy.com) RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core 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 strengths however, it also has some drawbacks. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.

Recent research utilized the DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

A recent study examined 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 conventionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders, were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or 프라그마틱 무료 프라그마틱체험 슬롯버프 (just click the up coming post) L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and 프라그마틱 무료체험 punishments that they might face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.