• 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 pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the connection 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 can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

Recent research has used an DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the 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 calls for more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a given situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs, 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 either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 studying complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a larger 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 extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or 프라그마틱 데모 슬롯 (Bookmarkangaroo.com) third year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.