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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they could draw on were important. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.

Recent research has used a DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. 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 found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or 프라그마틱 정품 슬롯 무료체험 (49.51.81.43) dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to consider 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 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations, and 프라그마틱 정품 카지노 (browse around this web-site) documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.