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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they could draw on were important. RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners speaking.

A recent study employed a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various 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 provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a 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 who were independent and then coded. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews for refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question with several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs 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 on average, 슬롯 the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors like relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.

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

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Moreover this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, 프라그마틱 (https://techonpage.com/story3596500/7-tips-about-pragmatic-Recommendations-that-no-one-will-tell-you) participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews, 프라그마틱 추천 환수율 - Allbookmarking.Com, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

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 라이브 카지노 LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.