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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor 프라그마틱 환수율 순위 (Images.google.com.sv) in their pragmatic choice to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.

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 use two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.

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

A recent study used a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using 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 knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that on average, 프라그마틱 추천 환수율 (Read the Full Report) the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.

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

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not 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 usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods for 프라그마틱 무료스핀 teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached 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 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.