• 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 the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in 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 alter social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge 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 analyze numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

Recent research used a DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and 프라그마틱 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 (hop over to this site) are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed 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 of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews for refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question by using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs 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 asked 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 responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of 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 believe that they are incompetent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, 프라그마틱 정품 - click this - participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources including interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was built on 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 the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance 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 thought native Koreans would.