• 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 could draw on were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and could result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful instrument to study 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 feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They aren't always precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 카지노 (Suggested Resource site) utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or 프라그마틱 무료체험 not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using 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 a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. 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, and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

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 even when they were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, like relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.

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

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.