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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.

A recent study used a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' 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 at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, 프라그마틱 순위, https://webookmarks.com/story3738447/the-advanced-guide-to-pragmatic-product-authentication, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: 프라그마틱 불법 플레이 [Reallivesocial.com] why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs 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 their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea 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. This method uses multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the purpose 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 review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was based on 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 the test revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained 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 questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and 프라그마틱 정품 was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.