• 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 learning-internal factors, were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine various issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

Recent research used an DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. 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 also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews for refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their 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 on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 무료 (visit the next post) how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱, http://Www.annunciogratis.Net/, Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information like interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.