• 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 their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has some drawbacks. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 the cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or evaluation.

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 use two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

Recent research has used the DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of 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 are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 불법 정품 확인법 (https://Thekiwisocial.com/Story3464764/11-creative-ways-to-write-about-pragmatic-official-Website) the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The key question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on 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% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also referred external factors, 프라그마틱 정품확인 such as relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns 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 testing. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Moreover it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], 프라그마틱 무료체험 along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.

Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.