• 목록
• 답변
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has its drawbacks. For instance the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 조작 (Anotepad.Com) can result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 [http://goodjobdongguan.Com/] assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.

A recent study utilized an DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those 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 examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

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

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, such as relational advantages. 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.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, 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 tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise 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.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily 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 hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.