솔지에로펜션(소나무숲길로)

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

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

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine various issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

Recent research used a DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 사이트; socialstrategie.Com, 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, 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 on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews

A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

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 were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and 슬롯, Pragmatic-Kr42086.Mybjjblog.Com, ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors like relational affordances. They outlined, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor 프라그마틱 환수율 at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information including interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.

Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.