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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine various aspects such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research utilized the DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess refusal ability.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean through 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 ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.

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 was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯 체험 (bbs.0817ch.com) L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either 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 situation.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally 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 consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine specific or complicated topics that are difficult for 프라그마틱 무료게임 슬롯 무료체험 (heavenarticle.Com) other methods of measuring.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals 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 study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.