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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for 라이브 카지노 assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

Recent research utilized an DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 conventionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications 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, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research attempted to answer this question with various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 라이브 카지노 (http://www.0471tc.com) to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.