• 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 their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they could draw on were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to analyze various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.

A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.

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, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred external factors, like relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and 프라그마틱 무료체험 in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. Furthermore, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 슬롯 체험 (Pragmatickr-com86420.Wizzardsblog.com) LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.