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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various issues, 프라그마틱 정품 (Git.openprivacy.Ca) including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.

A recent study used the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of testing 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 showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 순위, Opencbc.com, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and 프라그마틱 플레이 complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 슬롯 추천 (www.stes.tyc.Edu.tw) linguistic 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 not followed. They were worried that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.