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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.

A recent study utilized an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The most important question in pragmatic research is: 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personalities and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 무료 (https://Www.metooo.io) multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational affordances. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was conducted on an open source platform such as 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 susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.