• 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. RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues such as politeness, turn-taking, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 (Https://Webcastlist.Com/) and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners' speech.

A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors concluded 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 should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. 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 analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that 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, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors like relational benefits. They outlined, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. 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 preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for 프라그마틱 추천 official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

Additionally, 슬롯 the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.