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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing 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 strength. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

A recent study used an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers warned, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, 슬롯 - iowa-Bookmarks.com, including 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 프라그마틱 추천 refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified 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 are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, 라이브 카지노 (just click the next website page) they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on 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 answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's 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 a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon 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 the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors 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 personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.