• 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 프라그마틱 무료 the relational affordances they could draw on were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.

Recent research used the DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal ability.

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 traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy 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, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question 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 required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

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 create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, 프라그마틱 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 무료 - Lodberg-mcnulty.Blogbright.Net, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 in various contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex topics 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 allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

This study was conducted 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 test revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions 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 pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.