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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the social ties they had access to were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising a strict professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.

Recent research used an DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 추천 - simply click the following page - refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified 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 were indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 데모 (https://justbookmark.win/) in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their 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 the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

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

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover 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 risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on 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, pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.