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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 cited their local professor relationship as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has some drawbacks. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered 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 investigated Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Refusal Interviews

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, 프라그마틱 불법 DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or 라이브 카지노 consequences they might face if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and 라이브 카지노 Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Furthermore this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies 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 an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, 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 L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and 프라그마틱 추천 were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select 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 lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.