• 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 relationship advantages they had access to were significant. Researchers from TS and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 (https://gilmore-washington.blogbright.net/unquestionable-evidence-that-you-need-pragmatic-official-website/) ZL for instance were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has a few drawbacks. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Additionally, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 the DCT can be biased and may cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and 프라그마틱 체험 슬롯 추천 (Squareblogs.Net) lexical selection. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.

A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess refusal ability.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and 프라그마틱 conventionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: 프라그마틱 무료스핀 their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing 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 found that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

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 could produce patterns that resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They also discussed, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.