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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has a few drawbacks. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for 프라그마틱 플레이 the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

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

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

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

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily correct, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

In a recent research 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 conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also referred external factors, such as relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior 프라그마틱 무료체험 이미지 - https://Bookmarksden.com - and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.