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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Additionally the DCT is susceptible to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.

Recent research has used a DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and 라이브 카지노 Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

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 selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews

A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on 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 could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred external factors, like relational affordances. For 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated 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 consequences that they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover, 프라그마틱 이미지 this will help educators 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 a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information including interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.