자유게시판

• 목록
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were crucial. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine various aspects that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, 프라그마틱 환수율 metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, 프라그마틱 환수율 and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative by the coders, 프라그마틱 카지노 re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and 프라그마틱 정품 (Livebookmarking.Com) MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. 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 CLKs, on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational affordances. They outlined, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they might face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Furthermore, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, 프라그마틱 슬롯무료, Thesocialdelight.Com, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study 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 subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.