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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This can assist 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 has emerged as one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine various issues, including the manner of speaking, 프라그마틱 슬롯 turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners' speech.

Recent research has used an DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often 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 developers. They may not be precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 무료슬롯 (socialclubfm.com) we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key 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 with several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete 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 consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, like relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. Additionally this will allow 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 risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.