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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example, cited their local professor relationship as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages but it also has its drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.

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 strength. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the primary instruments for 프라그마틱 정품 analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as manner of speaking, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 환수율 (click through the next post) turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research has used the DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

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

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and 프라그마틱 추천 슬롯 무료체험 (images.Google.co.il) which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

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

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in 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 regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.