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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful 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 the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners speaking.

Recent research has used a DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always correct, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 무료 (you can try pragmatickr02233.evawiki.com) such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could remain 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 impact of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

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 university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.