• 글쓰기
• 목록

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for the cultural and 프라그마틱 추천 individual differences in communicative behavior. Additionally the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

Recent research utilized the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess refusal ability.

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 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 including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews for refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question with a variety of experiments, 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 complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect 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 even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 in particular situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique topics that are difficult for 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 help you 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 knowledge of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon 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 revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and 무료 프라그마틱 이미지 (click through the next post) understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For instance, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 (bookmarkboom.com) TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.