자유게시판

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they could draw on were important. RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their local professor 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 relationship as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and 라이브 카지노 - www.bos7.Cc, individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, 프라그마틱 추천 which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues that include politeness, turn taking, and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 lexical selection. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.

Recent research utilized the DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called 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 highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.

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

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.