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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally the DCT is susceptible to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.

A recent study utilized the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 슬롯 환수율 (see this site) traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as 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 often chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews for refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, like relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 체험 (Pragmatickorea67777.Aboutyoublog.Com) linguistic norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to 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 research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses various sources of data, such as interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.