• 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 as well as learner-internal elements, were important. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication 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 to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study utilized an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 순위 (Www.Google.Com.Sb) then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not always precise and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 데모 (click for more) could misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions 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 assessments 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 that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

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

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical 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 transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship benefits. They also discussed, for 프라그마틱 정품인증 슬롯버프 (153.126.169.73) instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.