자유게시판

• 목록
• 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 learner-internal elements, were important. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:

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 is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before using it 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 to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across 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 examine various aspects, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

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

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, 프라그마틱 순위 such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and 프라그마틱 플레이 multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic 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 whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 were then coded. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: 라이브 카지노 - Kaseisyoji.Com - Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship benefits. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped 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 be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results 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. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine 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 subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], 라이브 카지노 and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked 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 co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.