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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they were able to draw from were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual variations 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 assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research has used the DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess refusal ability.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 라이브 카지노, more about Pdc, 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools, 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 either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and 프라그마틱 게임 Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, 프라그마틱 데모 participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information, such as documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.