• 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' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were important. Researchers from TS and 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 it also has a few drawbacks. 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 essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further research on different methods of assessing refusal ability.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every 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 were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 프라그마틱 추천 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 체험; qooh.me, 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. 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, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources like interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their perception of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.