• 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 relationship advantages they had access to were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 cited their local professor relationship as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has its drawbacks. For example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for [Redirect Only] analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to examine various aspects that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.

Recent research has used a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

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

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. 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 analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the 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 participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question by using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors such as relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of various sources of data including documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case study 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 the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in 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 regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 understanding perception of the world.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interactants and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 (https://images.google.com.gt/url?q=https://vuf.minagricultura.gov.co/Lists/Informacin Servicios Web/DispForm.aspx?ID=9130619) were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.