• 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 their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they had access to were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor 프라그마틱 무료체험 (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, turn-taking, and 프라그마틱 이미지 홈페이지, go to website, lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

Recent research used an DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 순위 (simply click bbs.qupu123.com) their current life histories, as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

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 familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.