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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they had access to were significant. RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic 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

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking 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 has emerged as one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

A recent study used an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 정품확인 (simply click the up coming internet page) such as videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had 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. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic 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 within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required 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 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 이미지 (sneak a peek here) discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

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 this even though they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors like relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and 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 risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine complicated or unique topics that are difficult for 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 other methods to measure.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

This study was based on 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 the L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, 프라그마틱 카지노 (simply click the up coming internet page) deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

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

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.