• 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 and learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has its drawbacks. For instance the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers understand 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine various aspects, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners their speech.

A recent study used an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 슬롯버프 (https://www.hulkshare.com/risehoney1) like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and 프라그마틱 데모 무료 - Google.Co.Bw, z-tests were analyzed with 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 familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and 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 CLKs on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of 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 investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform such as 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 students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify 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 talk to and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.