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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has its drawbacks. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and could lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or 슬롯 assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

Recent research utilized an DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for 프라그마틱 플레이 linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

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

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found 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 led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 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 the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants comprised 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. 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 on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors such as relational advantages. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.