자유게시판

• 목록
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 the relationship advantages they could draw on were crucial. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example, cited their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 무료 슬롯 - oldcyber.Ru, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

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 analyze many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

Recent research used an DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers 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 must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. 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 respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered 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 for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. Furthermore this will allow educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.

The first step in the 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 are important for research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case in a broader theoretical context.

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 showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.