• 목록
• 답변
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, 프라그마틱 정품인증 it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally the DCT is susceptible to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument 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 ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to examine various aspects such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners speaking.

Recent research utilized a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 체험 [see] traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, 프라그마틱 which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their 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 rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

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

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.