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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they were able to draw from were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their pragmatic 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 the practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 but it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.

Recent research utilized the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

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

First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about 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 percent of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, like relational advantages. They outlined, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and 프라그마틱 슬롯 Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and 프라그마틱 플레이 환수율 [click the next internet page] documents to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the goals 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 beneficial to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test 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, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.