• 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 the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

Recent research has used an DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, 프라그마틱 체험 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 슬롯버프 [similar internet page] DCTs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, 프라그마틱 추천 they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic 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, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법, https://governmentsjob.live/, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their 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 resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relationship affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to review the existing research to gain a broad 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 the test showed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.