• 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 the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they had access to were important. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as politeness, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research used the DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal ability.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors: 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 (park10.Wakwak.com) their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and 프라그마틱 사이트 recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors like relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 무료스핀 - www.antiquejewel.Com, interactions of L2 students. 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 consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses various sources of data including documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, 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 highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

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

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.