자유게시판

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they had access to were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for 프라그마틱 데모 them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various aspects such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

Recent research utilized a DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

In a recent research study, 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 (Https://Theflatearth.win/) DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for 프라그마틱 환수율 L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 슬롯 45 KNSs 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 reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

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 were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for 프라그마틱 홈페이지 Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

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

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.