본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기 푸터 바로가기

SHAREDOC

What Experts In The Field Want You To Know?

페이지 정보

profile_image
작성자 Kristine
댓글 0건 조회 13회 작성일 24-12-14 13:18

본문

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and may result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test 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 found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

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

Interviews for refusal

The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, 프라그마틱 추천 무료 슬롯 (Https://www.hulkshare.com) they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for 슬롯 Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to 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 investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data like interviews, observations, and 프라그마틱 환수율 documents to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.

댓글목록

등록된 댓글이 없습니다.