• 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 the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT for 프라그마틱 환수율 instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Additionally the DCT can be biased and could result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.

A recent study utilized an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 should include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging 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-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 the impact of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], 프라그마틱 홈페이지 (bookmark4you.Win) and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.