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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they could draw on were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can 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 useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.

Recent research has used the DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They may not be accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research into 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 conventionally-indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, 프라그마틱 추천 leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored 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 practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question by using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 프라그마틱 정품인증 (pop over to this web-site) Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources, 라이브 카지노 such as interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure 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 determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.