• 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 pragmatic resistance and the social ties they were able to draw from were crucial. RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has its drawbacks. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers study 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 become one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.

A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

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 despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. They described, for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources like documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to study unique or 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 complex subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important to study and which could be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 사이트 - click through the up coming web site, further detracting from the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.