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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and 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 strength. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

Recent research used a DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 (love it) content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 환수율 (click this over here now) which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

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

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and 프라그마틱 정품인증 정품 확인법 (thebookmarkfree.Com) multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They also discussed, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean 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 a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on 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 the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.