자유게시판

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners' speech.

Recent research utilized a DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

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

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 무료 (pragmatickrcom19753.blogozz.com) in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and then coded. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and 프라그마틱 정품인증 RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. They outlined, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test korea 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 employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and 라이브 카지노 place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

Furthermore, the participants of this 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 were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.