자유게시판

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has some disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary tools for 프라그마틱 체험 [Wuchangtongcheng site] analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

Recent research has used the DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. 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 showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors like relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 체험 (made my day) consequences that they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns 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 tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various contexts and 프라그마틱 불법 슬롯 조작 [https://bbs.airav.Asia/home.php?mod=space&uid=2266380] in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

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

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.