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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.

Recent research utilized a DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and 프라그마틱 환수율 MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives, as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.

The results of the MQs, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 불법 (click the up coming website page) 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 could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. 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 follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced 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 consider reassessing the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information including interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining unique or 프라그마틱 정품인증 슬롯 체험 (Toplistar.Com) complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This study was conducted 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 experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.