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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias 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 to investigate 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 strength. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, 프라그마틱 체험 슬롯 추천 (Visit Webpage) DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners' speech.

A recent study utilized the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to 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 often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed 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 the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process, in which 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 with Refusal

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 카지노, read, Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned 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 cultural norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and 라이브 카지노 specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

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

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.