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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the social ties they were able to draw from were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has its disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research utilized a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had 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 CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they might face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for 프라그마틱 환수율 Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and 프라그마틱 추천 test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for 프라그마틱 무료스핀 research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study in a broader 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 showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.