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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Additionally the DCT is susceptible to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

A recent study employed a DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given an array of scenarios and 프라그마틱 사이트 무료체험 메타 (M1bar.com) asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 (Https://squareblogs.net/gatedry56/7-tips-to-make-the-greatest-use-of-your-pragmatic) questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. 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 further study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, 프라그마틱 (source for this article) DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 (source for this article) the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference 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 favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in 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 situation.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding 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 when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.