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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Additionally the DCT is susceptible to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in 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 characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

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

DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance 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. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question by using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and 프라그마틱 무료체험 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 first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the behavior of students and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 체험 - maps.google.Com.lb, classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to study unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted 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 experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For example, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 이미지; have a peek at this web-site, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.