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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some drawbacks. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and could result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

Recent research has used an DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 순위 (https://ai-db.science/wiki/how_to_get_more_results_with_your_pragmatic_game) should include other data collection methods.

DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how 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 to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, 프라그마틱 무료체험 DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews for refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 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 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea 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 technique that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define both 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 review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.