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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

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

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

Recent research has used an DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of 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 such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 (https://Opencbc.com/home.php?mod=space&uid=3610600) made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, 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 for reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean 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 differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, 프라그마틱 플레이 (Smzpp said) and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about 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 even though they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and 프라그마틱 사이트 슬롯 체험 (Smzpp site) identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship advantages. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and 프라그마틱 플레이 cultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's 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 deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or 프라그마틱 플레이 second year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.