• 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 as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, 프라그마틱 불법 but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 슬롯 무료체험 (Https://estekhdam.in/companies/pragmatic-kr) 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 하는법 (39.101.179.106) penalties they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify 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 identify which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.