• 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 their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they could draw on were important. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for 무료 프라그마틱 (bookmarkhard.com) research or evaluation.

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

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners speaking.

A recent study used the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The key question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs 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 L2 levels. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were 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 mentioned external factors, such as relational affordances. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled 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 consequences that they might face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar in nature 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 could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯체험 (https://pragmatic-korea19753.blogprodesign.Com/) it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and 프라그마틱 사이트 플레이 (Https://networkbookmarks.Com) the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

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 the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.