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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners speaking.

Recent research used an DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for 프라그마틱 정품확인; just click the following webpage, L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms 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 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 공식홈페이지 (Https://1001bookmarks.com) pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in 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 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also 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 mentioned external factors such as relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data like interviews, observations and documents, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that 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, even though she thought native Koreans would.