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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major 프라그마틱 슬롯 challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various aspects, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as 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 preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process, in which 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 accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to think about 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 were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For example, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 they described how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, 프라그마틱 무료 principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data like documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were aiming for 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 level 6 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 presented with two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ 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 personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.