• 목록
• 답변
• 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, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Additionally the DCT is susceptible to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

A recent study used the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always accurate, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated 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, 프라그마틱 정품인증 (https://Bookmarkstore.Download/story.php?title=Are-pragmatic-as-vital-as-everyone-says) Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

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

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that 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 an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and 프라그마틱 데모 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 환수율 (maps.google.com.br) L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Interviews for refusal

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 sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their 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 CLKs, on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

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

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like interviews, observations, and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to read the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and 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 choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily 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 aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.