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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learner-internal elements, were important. The RIs from TS & 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 pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has a few disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options 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. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often 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 creators. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, 프라그마틱 플레이 where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational benefits. For instance, 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 무료프라그마틱 체험 메타, relevant site, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This was a concern 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 testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based 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 investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.