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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they had access to were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.

A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.

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 could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, 프라그마틱 환수율 which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Interviews for refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they could produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational advantages. They outlined, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and 프라그마틱 추천 무료 슬롯 (mouse click the next web site) linguistic norms at their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop 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. This method uses multiple data sources like documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and 프라그마틱 무료 which could be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This 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 revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.