• 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 learning-internal factors, were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and 프라그마틱 체험 (leftbookmarks.com) the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners' speech.

Recent research has used an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, 프라그마틱 카지노 such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal ability.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "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' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For 프라그마틱 순위 무료 슬롯버프 (Https://Geniusbookmarks.Com/Story18098191/Three-Common-Reasons-Your-Pragmatic-Free-Trial-Slot-Buff-Isn-T-Performing-And-How-To-Fix-It) example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders and then coded. 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 captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, like relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data including interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.