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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they could draw on were crucial. 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 expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

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

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

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

DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 무료프라그마틱 체험 메타 (visit my web site) departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, 프라그마틱 무료 HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered 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 second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.