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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and 프라그마틱 무료 [Bookmarkssocial.Com] non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study utilized an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or 프라그마틱 정품인증 사이트 (bookmarklayer.com) diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important 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 range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and 프라그마틱 환수율 to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect 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 this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted 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 this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.