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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they had access to were important. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally the DCT can be biased and may lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study used a DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They are not always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors like relational affordances. They outlined, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for 프라그마틱 무료 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 help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information including documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 이미지, click the up coming post, to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

The participants of 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 year at university and hoped to attain level six on 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 hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant 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.