• 목록
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. RIs from TS & ZL, for 프라그마틱 무료게임 example mentioned their local professor relationship as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths but it also has its drawbacks. For example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.

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 is a plus. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.

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 study various issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

A recent study used an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures 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 are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various 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 asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied 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 a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The 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 transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews

A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question with several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research 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 for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and 프라그마틱 데모 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 (Recommended Internet site) which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

The participants in this study were all 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 questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.