자유게시판

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection 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 characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always accurate, and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess 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 the DCT was more direct and conventionally 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, 프라그마틱 무료체험 정품 - https://bookmarkick.com/story18130625/why-you-should-not-think-about-How-to-improve-your-live-casino - Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete 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 to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and 프라그마틱 정품 put the issue in a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform, 프라그마틱 무료체험 the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

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

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.