클잼 로고

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, 프라그마틱 but also some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.

Recent research used an DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from 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 investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and 슬롯 their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with 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 familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational benefits. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which could be left out. 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 that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.

The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 (mouse click the following webpage) third year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.