• 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 their own resistance to change and the social ties they could draw on were important. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various aspects, including the manner of speaking, 프라그마틱 정품 turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

A recent study used a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and 프라그마틱 이미지 teaching.

The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 L2 norms, while in Situation 14, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 (Bookmarklogin.Com) CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and 프라그마틱 무료체험 linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test 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 a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses numerous sources of information including interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.