• 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 and learner-internal elements, were important. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and 프라그마틱 정품 슬롯 환수율; idea.informer.com, lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study various issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners' speech.

A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either 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 CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns 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 resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.

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

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.