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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally the DCT is susceptible to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.

Recent research has used a DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal ability.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors: 프라그마틱 정품확인 their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using various experiments, 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 first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors like relational advantages. 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.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and 프라그마틱 정품확인 Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. Furthermore this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data like interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and 프라그마틱 무료 정품확인 (https://maps.google.com.sl) which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case in a broader theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This 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 regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.