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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they could draw on were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research utilized an DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or 프라그마틱 정품인증 무료스핀 (pragmatickr75319.buyoutblog.Com) not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 체험 - https://pragmatic-kr10964.blogsvirals.com/29322789/how-to-build-successful-pragmatic-experience-tips-from-home, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The key question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first 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 scenario.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their identities and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources like interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers, 프라그마틱 순위 which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.

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

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.