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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs from TS and 프라그마틱 정품확인 프라그마틱 불법, Matkafasi.Com, ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has its drawbacks. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, 프라그마틱 환수율 which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary tools for 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research utilized the DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, 프라그마틱 사이트 (Https://Www.Pinterest.Com/Karateerror5) in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas 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 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 coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily 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 and understanding understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.