• 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 and learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and could result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

Recent research has used an DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, 프라그마틱 사이트 like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and 프라그마틱 정품확인 a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean using 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 at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultures on the behavior of students and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 classroom interactions of students from L2. Furthermore, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 프라그마틱 무료스핀 (maps.google.com.Tr) this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data including interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.

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 study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.