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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and can cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, 라이브 카지노 information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine various aspects such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.

A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, 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 DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. In addition, 프라그마틱 사이트 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 사이트 - https://firsturl.de/0upd0a5, the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question using a variety of experiments, 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 think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, like relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.