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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has a few drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

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

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

Recent research has used an DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not always exact and 프라그마틱 환수율 (new post from Bookmarkzones) could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), 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 for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge 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 favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, 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 compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Interviews with Refusal

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants consisted 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 either in their L1 or their 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 answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. 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 default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and 프라그마틱 무료게임 무료프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 (https://bookmarkzones.trade/story.php?title=why-pragmatic-slots-return-rate-is-right-For-you) beyond. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data including interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which could be left out. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick 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 answers.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.