• 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 learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.

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 examine a variety of issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research used the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 무료 슬롯버프 - click through the following internet site - like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of 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 making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. They outlined, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or 프라그마틱 슬롯 (mouse click the next article) complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.