솔지에로펜션(소나무숲길로)

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they could draw on were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and may cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

Recent research used the DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 무료체험 슬롯버프 (right here) based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current 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 identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as 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 better in terms of the linguistic and 프라그마틱 불법 cultural norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This is similar to the concerns 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 as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives 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 read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to include their own text, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 (king-wifi.win) or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.

Furthermore, the participants of this case 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 프라그마틱 불법 were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.