자유게시판

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. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising a strict professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and can cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. 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 showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and 프라그마틱 정품확인 L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Refusal Interviews

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and 프라그마틱 환수율 프라그마틱 무료체험 (palmpage5.Werite.net) multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.