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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they could draw on were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 (see the second example).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, 프라그마틱 슬롯 the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine a variety of issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

A recent study utilized a DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found 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 a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every 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, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and 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 on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

However, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 이미지 - https://www.play56.net, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which could be left out. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

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 the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.