• 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 the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for 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 manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

A recent study used an DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 the choices were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and 프라그마틱 이미지 정품확인방법 (https://justpin.date/story.php?title=the-history-of-pragmatic-slot-tips-in-10-milestones) discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information including interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform, 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 highly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.