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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they could draw on were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.

Recent research has used the DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 슈가러쉬 (he has a good point) more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 무료 슬롯 (pragmatickr65308.ka-blogs.com) refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 their current lives, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding 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 well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with various 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 in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to support the findings, including 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 define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon 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 this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.