• 목록
• 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 social ties they were able to draw from were important. RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 could cause overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study 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 more steps can be a plus. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.

A recent study used the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be precise and 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods of assessing refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and 프라그마틱 불법 정품인증, you can try here, RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual 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 a sign of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for 프라그마틱 불법 게임 (Elearnportal.Science) choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Interviews with Refusal

The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing 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 strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their perception of the world.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.