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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has its disadvantages. For instance the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 the DCT is susceptible to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or 프라그마틱 불법 assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major 프라그마틱 카지노 issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

A recent study used a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given various scenarios and 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed 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 behavior.

Interviews for refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs, and 프라그마틱 정품인증 RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results 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 would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based 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 employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This case 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 this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.