자유게시판

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communication. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

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 in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners' speech.

Recent research used a DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 should include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding process was iterative, with 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 accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred external factors, like relationship affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.

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

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for 프라그마틱 사이트 Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based 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 an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations, 프라그마틱 게임 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 무료체험, mouse click the up coming post, to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to study unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers 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, further reducing their quality of response.

Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in 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 that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.