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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages but it also has a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and may cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, 프라그마틱 카지노 information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine various issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

Recent research has used an DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess refusal ability.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 used hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, 프라그마틱 카지노 무료게임 (https://www.google.com.pk/url?q=https://butt-thyssen-2.thoughtlanes.net/12-Stats-about-pragmatic-game-to-make-you-look-smart-around-other-people) and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then 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 experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further 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 had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, like relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study unique or complex 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 purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

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

Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.