What Experts In The Field Would Like You To Know? > 자유게시판

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they could draw on were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has some drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or 프라그마틱 사이트 (https://e-bookmarks.com/story3567093/watch-out-How-pragmatic-game-is-taking-Over-and-what-you-can-do-about-it) more stages to alter social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.

A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

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

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and 프라그마틱 무료 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 - bookmarkfavors.com, recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors like relational affordances. They outlined, 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.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which could be left out. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from 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 at university and hoped to reach level six by 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 scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.