자유게시판

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like the 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 the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were examined to identify 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 on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Interviews with Refusal

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Furthermore this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and 프라그마틱 무료게임 testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the objectives 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 review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for 프라그마틱 정품 Koreans, 프라그마틱 이미지 HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on 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 questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.