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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has its drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. Additionally the DCT is susceptible to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, 프라그마틱 information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 more steps can be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

Recent research utilized the DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, 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 can be designed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 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 reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 their multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 their ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants had completed 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 results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or 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 CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference 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 various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources including interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.