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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages however, it also has its drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, 라이브 카지노 it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

Recent research used an DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 슬롯 무료 [visit the up coming website] not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Interviews with Refusal

The central question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on 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 answers. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

The first step in conducting a 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 for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue 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 showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.