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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they had access to were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising a strict professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has its disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This feature can help researchers study 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 for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study used the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 (peatix.Com) ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess 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 from L2. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method makes use of various sources of data including interviews, observations, and documents to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, 프라그마틱 each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and 프라그마틱 불법, daoqiao.Net, was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.