• 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 factors CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine various issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

Recent research used a DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 무료 슬롯, 1v34.com, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed 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 insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms 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-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They outlined, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.

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

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.