What Experts From The Field Want You To Know > 자유게시판

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has its disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or assessment.

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

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

Recent research used the DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. 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 methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 게임 the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had 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. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Interviews with Refusal

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain 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, DCTs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 [Taikwu.com.tw] MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. 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, 프라그마틱 무료체험 순위 - olderworkers.com.au - the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, like relational advantages. They outlined, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

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

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to 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 makes use of various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

This study was conducted 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 the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.