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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they had access to were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize 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 common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has its drawbacks. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and could lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

Recent research used a DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among 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 efficient than other methods of refusal, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always accurate, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 정품 확인법 (visit the website) they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored 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 after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 (letsbookmarkit.com) 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to 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 CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different contexts and 프라그마틱 카지노 in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information, such as documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

In a case study, 프라그마틱 슬롯 the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore 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 this.