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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they could draw on were important. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has its disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 슈가러쉬 (simply click the following page) more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to analyze various issues, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 순위 - isocialfans.Com - including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are typically developed 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 designers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against 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 the reason why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to 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 studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their perception of the world.

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.