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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and 무료 프라그마틱 홈페이지 (had me going) could cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.

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 of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.

A recent study used an DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 플레이 슬롯 환수율 - similar web-site - we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending 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 further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Interviews with Refusal

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect 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 even though they were able to create patterns that resembled native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. Furthermore this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data including interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.