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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. RIs from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. 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 determine the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.

Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated 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, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to 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 the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews for refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research attempted to answer this question with a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and 프라그마틱 체험 RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They described, for 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 (mouse click the next web site) example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods 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 research method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a wider 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 study revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.