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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has a few drawbacks. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for 프라그마틱 정품 (go directly to xn--0lq70ey8yz1b.com) cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study used an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. 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 further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests, 프라그마틱 슬롯 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 (click to find out more) and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read 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 (RIs)

The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either 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 native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses various sources of data including interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was conducted 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 experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.

Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and perception of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.