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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they could draw on were important. RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has its disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

A recent study employed an DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 플레이 (https://olderworkers.Com.au) and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. 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 analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, 프라그마틱 이미지 such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This worry was similar to the one expressed 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 remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. Additionally, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. This method makes use of numerous sources of information including documents, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 정품확인방법; maps.google.mw, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.

In a case study the first step is to clearly 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 helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.