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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, 프라그마틱 슬롯 (Mylittlebookmark.Com) turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed 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 after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or 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 on average, the CLKs resisted 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 actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.

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

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research is ideal for 프라그마틱 사이트 studying specific or 프라그마틱 불법 complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.