• 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 their own resistance to change and the social ties they could draw on were important. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 사이트 (https://lovewiki.faith) instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and may lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to examine various aspects, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.

Recent research utilized a DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The central issue in research on pragmatics 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. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex topics that are difficult for 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 정품 사이트 (click the up coming internet site) other methods of measuring.

In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose 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 helpful to review the existing research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.