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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the social ties they had access to were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example, cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and can cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners' speech.

A recent study used the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, 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 a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. 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 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, 프라그마틱 슬롯 이미지 [use 044300] the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants comprised 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 L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, 프라그마틱 불법 did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational affordances. They described, for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed 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 a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals 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 topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.