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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor 프라그마틱 추천 슬롯 하는법 (fakenews.Win) (see example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is 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. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers understand 프라그마틱 정품확인 무료체험 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험버프; Http://Taikwu.Com.Tw/Dsz/Home.Php?Mod=Space&Uid=606641, the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine various aspects that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners their speech.

Recent research has used the DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 further studies of different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. 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 may still be a useful 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 allow them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the goals 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 beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

The participants of 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 at university and 프라그마틱 - yd.Yichang.Cc - hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.