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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they had access to were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has a few drawbacks. For instance the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness is a plus. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as 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 choice. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners speaking.

A recent study used the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for 프라그마틱 정품 무료스핀 (click through the up coming webpage) linguistics, 프라그마틱 정품확인 - click through the up coming webpage - such as form and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, such as relational benefits. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean 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 relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and 프라그마틱 순위 환수율 (similar internet page) LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.

The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.