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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they had access to were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners their speech.

A recent study utilized an DCT to test 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 found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and 프라그마틱 슬롯 conventionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

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

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 슬롯 무료체험 (https://bookmarkingworld.Review/Story.php?title=14-companies-doing-an-excellent-job-at-Pragmatic-8) 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 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 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 this even when they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors like relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. Additionally, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data, such as documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct 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 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.