• 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 learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, 프라그마틱 플레이 무료스핀 (Letsbookmarkit.com) information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to examine various issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, 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 determine the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used 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 CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied 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 preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing 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 most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider 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% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social expectations 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 native interlocutors might view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information including interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 정품 확인법 (userbookmark.com) unique subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on 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.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to reach level six by 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 hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.