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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or 프라그마틱 무료체험 이미지 (modernbookmarks.com) more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.

Recent research has used the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was 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 of data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, 무료 프라그마틱 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 reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified 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 reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical 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 transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, 무료 프라그마틱 순위 - pragmatic-kr02345.bloggosite.Com, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, such as relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

The first step in the 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 must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.

Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.