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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the social ties they were able to draw from were important. RIs from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has its drawbacks. For instance the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before 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. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners' speech.

A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They may not be accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 데모 (https://Bookmark-nation.com/story18149799/why-people-don-t-care-about-pragmatic-site) involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Interviews for 프라그마틱 정품 refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. 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 korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method utilizes multiple data sources like interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and 프라그마틱 체험 were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.