자유게시판

• 목록
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising a strict professor 프라그마틱 무료 (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

Recent research has used an DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.

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 with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

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 though they could produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and 프라그마틱 무료게임 beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, 프라그마틱 플레이 a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and 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 useful to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 put the issue in a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding perception of the world.

The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.