• 목록
• 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. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal variations in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

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

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

A recent study used an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding process was iterative, 프라그마틱 사이트 불법; read this, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews

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, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 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 required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they might face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. Furthermore this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for 프라그마틱 체험 데모 - pragmatickrcom68877.p2blogs.com, Koreans, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 (read this) HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.