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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learner-internal elements, were important. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication 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 study many issues, such as politeness, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 프라그마틱 정품인증 (Www.e10100.com) turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.

Recent research utilized a DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was 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' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 and that their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, 프라그마틱 정품확인 the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. 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 examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders and then coded. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, 프라그마틱 이미지 [Bookmarking.win] did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will help them better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data, such as interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.

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 research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case in a broader theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

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

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.