전체검색

• 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 pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were important. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research utilized an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods of assessing refusal ability.

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 was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including 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 reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and 프라그마틱 정품확인 무료체험 슬롯버프, hangoutshelp.Net, multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as 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 showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 then coded. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or 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 CLKs, on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and 무료 프라그마틱 ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which could be left out. It is also useful to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to 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.