• 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 the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they had access to were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example, cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools for 프라그마틱 홈페이지 analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.

Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of 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 required to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about 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% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, 프라그마틱 정품인증 슈가러쉬 - Https://Genderkaren73.Bravejournal.Net/10-Facts-About-How-To-Check-The-Authenticity-Of-Pragmatic-That-Will-Instantly, like relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create 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 a research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was built 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 this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and 프라그마틱 추천 understanding and their knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.