• 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 instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant reason for them to choose to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some drawbacks. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence 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, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study various aspects, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research has used an DCT as tool to evaluate 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 authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They aren't always correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for 슬롯 further investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand 프라그마틱 사이트 the impact of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, 라이브 카지노 principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This case 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 the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.

The interviewees were presented two situations, 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. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.