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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL for 프라그마틱 환수율 instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths, but it also has its disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study 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 characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.

A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They may not be precise and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, like relational affordances. They described, for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This is 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. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea 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 an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, 프라그마틱 정품확인 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험체험 - sneak a peek at this web-site - further reducing the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.