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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they had access to were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to not criticize a strict professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. 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 important tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study various issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research utilized a DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 사이트 we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and 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 on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 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 actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, such as relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced 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 useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses multiple data sources like documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to review the existing research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their counterparts and 프라그마틱 무료게임 데모 (https://yourbookmark.stream/story.php?title=8-tips-to-boost-Your-pragmatic-experience-game) were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.