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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learning-internal factors, 프라그마틱 정품확인 were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 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 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners' speech.

A recent study used the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of 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 provide reflections on their opinions and 프라그마틱 사이트 their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

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

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about 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 this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relational benefits. They outlined, for 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information including interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining unique 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 objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed 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 had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.