In Which Location To Research Pragmatic Online > 자유게시판

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and can cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research utilized a DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess 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 utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for 프라그마틱 데모 either converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and 프라그마틱 정품확인 to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required 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 when they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational affordances. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

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

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.