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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has some drawbacks. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to 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 connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

A recent study used a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose 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 cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for 프라그마틱 무료게임 more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using 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 MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 게임, https://m.jingdexian.com/home.Php?mod=space&uid=3596855, L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews

One of the major 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 정품확인방법 (www.mazafakas.com) questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist 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 risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of various sources of data including interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a larger theoretical context.

This 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 experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.