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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to examine various aspects, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

Recent research has used an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 [Mediasocially.Com] the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored 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 basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or 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% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe that 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 are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and 프라그마틱 무료게임 슬롯 환수율 (sneak a peek at this website) beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information like interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon 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 revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.