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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they could draw on were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research utilized the DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and 프라그마틱 체험 asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess refusal ability.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and 프라그마틱 불법 Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a given situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs 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 native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on 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 answers. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns 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 would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 in various cultural contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data including interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

Moreover, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university, and 프라그마틱 순위 were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.