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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they could draw on were important. RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).

This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.

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 experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of 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 complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. 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 spoke of external factors such as relational benefits. They outlined, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 프라그마틱 무료체험 [https://maroonbookmarks.com/Story18013385/10-Pragmatic-demo-related-Projects-to-stretch-your-Creativity] the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they might face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may remain 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 allow them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data, such as interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 unique topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which could be left out. It is also useful to review the existing research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was based upon 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 study revealed that the 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 accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.