자유게시판

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors 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 until 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 individual differences. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

A recent study utilized an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as 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 designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' practical choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 슬롯버프 [Brewwiki.Win] L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and 무료 프라그마틱 L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments 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 an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information including documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.