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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they had access to were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

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 is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and can 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 is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or 프라그마틱 카지노 more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like manner of speaking, 프라그마틱 정품인증 turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

Recent research has used an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, 프라그마틱 정품인증 (https://jisuzm.tv/home.php?mod=space&uid=5426970) such as relationships and benefits. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and 프라그마틱 정품인증 cultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based 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 investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.