공지사항

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major 프라그마틱 무료 factor in their decision to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT, for 프라그마틱 정품인증 example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

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

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners' speech.

Recent research has used an DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally 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 such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered 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 understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs on average, 프라그마틱 체험 무료체험 슬롯버프, Valetinowiki.Racing, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are 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 as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered 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 second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.