• 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 important. RIs from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has some drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.

A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and 프라그마틱 슬롯 are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. 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 examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and 프라그마틱 L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every 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 transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 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 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 on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. They described, for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 불법 (http://www.028bbs.com/space-uid-131032.html) the impact of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

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 multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were 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 aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.