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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has some drawbacks. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for 프라그마틱 데모 assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers understand 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 primary tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

Recent research used the DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. 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 warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. 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 accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The central question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors such as relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, 프라그마틱 불법 HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to 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 of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved 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 for their next test. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.