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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

A recent study used the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as 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 are often developed 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 designers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 슬롯버프; https://Peatix.com/user/23850134, a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on 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 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 게임 and ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, such as relational benefits. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. 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 consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the situation 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, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.