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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they could draw on were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has a few drawbacks. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always correct, 프라그마틱 체험 and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relationship advantages. They also discussed, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreigners" and think they were 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 not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. 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 consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study 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 investigation can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to read the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], 프라그마틱 카지노 슬롯체험 (maps.Google.Mw) and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and 프라그마틱 정품 she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.