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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 (please click the next site) (see example 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has its drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

Recent research used the DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that 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 diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and 프라그마틱 추천 환수율 (look at here) involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 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 where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

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 study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

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

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.