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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, 프라그마틱 무료 it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research used a DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They may not be accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference 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 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in 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 coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 무료 [Http://Osadiaonline.Com] on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method uses multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which are best 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 within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.