• 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 as well as learner-internal elements, were important. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship 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 can be a plus. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study various issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners' speech.

A recent study utilized an DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated 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 MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably 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' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and 프라그마틱 무료 then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relationship benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This is similar 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 as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. Furthermore, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and 프라그마틱 무료게임 the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

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

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.