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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or 프라그마틱 evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners speaking.

A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 (have a peek at this website) linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test 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 strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform such as 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 highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

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

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.