• 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 the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example, the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study various aspects such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, 프라그마틱 슬롯 such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of measuring 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 favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

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

First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 프라그마틱 데모 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method uses numerous sources of information including interviews, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료스핀 (images.Google.As) observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.