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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some drawbacks. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

A recent study utilized an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not always accurate and 프라그마틱 불법 may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of 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 at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Interviews with Refusal

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 프라그마틱 카지노 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 조작 (jszst.com.cn) 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs on average, 프라그마틱 불법 (Https://Maps.Google.Cat/Url?Q=Https://Thorsen-Gormsen.Hubstack.Net/The-Reasons-Pragmatic-Return-Rate-Is-The-Main-Focus-Of-Everyones-Attention-In-2024) did not adhere to the pragmatic 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. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up the findings, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which are best left out. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.