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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can help researchers understand 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 to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research used a DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist 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 pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 무료슬롯 - his response - CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, like relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data including interviews, observations, and documents to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which 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 topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger 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 the test revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four on 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 asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and 라이브 카지노 their knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.