• 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, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or 프라그마틱 데모 evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study various aspects that include politeness, 프라그마틱 사이트 turn taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

A recent study utilized a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, 라이브 카지노 the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, 프라그마틱 슬롯 metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. 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 pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

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

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test 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 relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources including documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated issues that are difficult to 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 allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.