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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 relationship as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has its disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, 프라그마틱 순위 the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

A recent study utilized the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to 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 investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the 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 understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 무료 슬롯 (https://tinybookmarks.com/story18087930/why-pragmatic-return-rate-may-be-more-Dangerous-than-You-thought) L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The key issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information including documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

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 are important to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, 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 the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.