자유게시판

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and 프라그마틱 무료체험 capacity to make use of relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and may cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

A recent study used the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always exact and 프라그마틱 정품 (related webpage) could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

First, 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, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 프라그마틱 환수율 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using several experiments, 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 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, like relationship affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean 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 strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based 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 test revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and 프라그마틱 순위 슬롯 환수율 (https://210list.com/story18632220/20-trailblazers-lead-the-way-in-pragmatic-free) hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, 프라그마틱 플레이 and she therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.