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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and could result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study utilized an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

In a recent study, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 이미지 (socialbookmark.Stream) DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and 라이브 카지노 a lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 추천 (nutris.net) relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to 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. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs 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. Then, 프라그마틱 이미지 they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based 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 deep, participatory investigations 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, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic 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 topic and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.