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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they were able to draw from were crucial. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important 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 strengths, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for 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 social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to examine a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, 무료 프라그마틱 such as videos or 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not always accurate and 프라그마틱 슬롯 may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and 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 various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read 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

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question with various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.

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 patterns that resembled native speakers. In addition, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't 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 various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior 프라그마틱 불법 of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. 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 risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations, to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.