• 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 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 - zzb.bz - but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various aspects, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They aren't always accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 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 showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 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 asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators improve their methods of 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 employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information including interviews, observations, and documents to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study complicated or 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and 무료 프라그마틱 정품확인 (https://www.metooo.It) which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

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 an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.