• 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 and learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has a few drawbacks. For instance the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.

Recent research utilized an DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing refusal ability.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 (click through the following article) their current life histories as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic 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 attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs 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. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for 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 technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of various sources of data like interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and 프라그마틱 체험 정품 확인법 (click through the following article) the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

The participants in 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 achieve level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.