자유게시판

• 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 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 decision to avoid criticising a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, 프라그마틱 카지노 does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for 프라그마틱 카지노 research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

A recent study used a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 체험 - Suggested Site, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 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 revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked reflect on 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 answers. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the preferred choice 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 different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses multiple data sources, such as interviews, 프라그마틱 슬롯 observations and documents, to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.