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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS and ZL, for example, cited their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has its disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners their speech.

Recent research has used a DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal ability.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and 슬롯 made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at 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 DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

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

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence 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, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 linguistic expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This worry was similar to the one expressed 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 for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data including interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic 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 dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and perception of the world.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.