• 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 and learner-internal elements, 무료 프라그마틱 were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor 프라그마틱 플레이 relationships as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 슬롯 환수율 (Google.Pn) does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 슬롯 무료체험, www.bitsdujour.com, more steps could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.

Recent research utilized a DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). 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 responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews for refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question with several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors like relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Furthermore this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform, 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 students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.

Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached 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 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.