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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯 추천 [Www.Optionshare.tw] ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor 프라그마틱 사이트 in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and can cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

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

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

Recent research used a DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 conventionally-indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of 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 of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave 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 pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their 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, on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors such as relational affordances. For 무료 프라그마틱 example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Moreover it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea 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 in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached the level of 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, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.