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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances and 프라그마틱 정품인증 the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 (see examples 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has some drawbacks. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

A recent study used a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored 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 such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. 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. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 - hop over to this site, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, 프라그마틱 순위 이미지 (relevant site) like relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. 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 preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was based 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 this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.