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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their decision to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has its disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and could result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool for 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 슬롯 조작 (Https://Images.Google.Com.Gt/Url?Q=Https://Christophersen-Padilla-2.Blogbright.Net/10-Healthy-Habits-To-Use-Pragmatic) analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.

A recent study used the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using 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 of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses 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 CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked 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 more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

However, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 불법 (one-time offer) the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. 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 preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources including documents, interviews, and observations, to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to study unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then 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 she therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.