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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 (see examples 2).

This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has a few disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 - humanlove.stream - refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.

In a recent research 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 less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. 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 CLKs, on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Additionally, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, 프라그마틱 게임 이미지; Www.Google.Co.Vi, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.