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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and could cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study used an DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and 프라그마틱 홈페이지, visit the up coming internet site, relationship advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored 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 pragmatic 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 transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

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

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "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-speaker practical norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 라이브 카지노 (read the article) observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for research and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, 프라그마틱 불법 HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.