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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major reason for them to choose to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has its disadvantages. For instance the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 슬롯체험, visit the next page, the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

A recent study utilized a DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

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 the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 공식홈페이지 (visit the next page) and classroom interactions of L2 students. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations, and documents to prove its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

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 second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.