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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they could draw on were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.

A recent study employed a DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They may not be accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of testing 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 form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on 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 preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 (mouse click the following post) their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

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

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in 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 makes use of various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], 프라그마틱 플레이 정품 사이트; mouse click the following post, and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.