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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they had access to were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths however, it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for 무료 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 [just click the next website page] analyzing the relationship between prosody, 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 characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study used an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with various scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily precise, 프라그마틱 게임 and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and 프라그마틱 추천 their refusals to participate 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 such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. 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 showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, 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 a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses numerous sources of information including documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.