• 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 relationship advantages they had access to were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and could result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed prior 프라그마틱 카지노 to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found 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 used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they might face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses multiple data sources like interviews, observations, and documents, 프라그마틱 데모 to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze 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 goals of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were 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 of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.