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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core 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 many strengths but it also has some drawbacks. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.

Recent research has used an DCT as tool to evaluate 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 appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. 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, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They aren't always precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged 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 making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored 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 practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs 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 situation.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors such as relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 순위 (gpsites.win) of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and 프라그마틱 정품확인 the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. 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 counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.