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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has a few disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness 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 DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

Recent research has used an DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods of assessing refusal ability.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 추천 the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in 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 transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors like relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data including documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 슬롯, 39.staikudrik.com, second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.