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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, 프라그마틱 플레이 the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

Recent research used a DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

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 the DCT promoted more direct and 무료 프라그마틱 traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, 프라그마틱 환수율 슬롯 사이트 (just click the next article) and their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to 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 pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they might face if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. Furthermore this will allow 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 consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method uses various sources of data, such as interviews, observations, and documents to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions 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 reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.