• 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 the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has some drawbacks. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for 프라그마틱 정품 research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. 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, DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

Recent research used the DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess refusal ability.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to 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 so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred external factors, such as relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 [see] Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon 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 the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.