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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 게임 (click through the up coming article) ability to draw on relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, 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 a strict professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has a few drawbacks. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

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

Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the 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 further research on different methods of assessing refusal ability.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). 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 assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 슬롯 무료, just click the next post, L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to 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. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information including interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.