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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor 프라그마틱 사이트 relationships as an important factor in their decision to avoid criticising a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various aspects such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research has used an DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 게임 (Bookmarking.Win) they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and 프라그마틱 정품인증 utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 무료 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 (hyperlink) 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.