• 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 relationship advantages they were able to draw from were important. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has a few disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various aspects such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.

A recent study examined 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 conventionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and 프라그마틱 체험 슬롯 추천 [Lovewiki officially announced] Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and 무료 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 (Lovewiki officially announced) RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be 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 CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The 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 coders independent of each other who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. 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 on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, like relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. Moreover this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea 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 technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to help support the findings, 무료 프라그마틱 정품 확인법; Https://Lovewiki.Faith/Wiki/Nordentoftcarver2644, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case in a broader theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

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

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.