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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various aspects that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were 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. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal ability.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 조작 (visit the following web page) and a lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms 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 the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The central question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand 프라그마틱 사이트 정품 (pragmatickr-Com20964.dreamyblogs.com) the effects of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. Moreover 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 risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data, such as documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

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 which aspects of the subject are important to study and which could be left out. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and 라이브 카지노 place the case in a wider 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 study showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.