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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study used the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and 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 performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) 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. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity 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 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

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

Refusal Interviews

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 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 their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This 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 test revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for 프라그마틱 무료 their next test. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.