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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they were able to draw from were crucial. For 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 추천 (look at this site) instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to not criticize a strict professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has its disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.

A recent study used the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used 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 knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using several experimental tools, 프라그마틱 정품확인 including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

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 when they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could 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 contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. Moreover it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also useful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based 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 this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.