• 목록
• 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 & ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence 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 of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine various aspects such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.

A recent study utilized a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 무료 슬롯버프 (https://listfav.com/Story19510900/the-best-pragmatic-tricks-to-transform-your-life) L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews

A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. They described, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

However, 프라그마틱 불법 the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for 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 an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of various sources of data, such as interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.