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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they could draw on were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, 프라그마틱 슬롯 슈가러쉬, visit this hyperlink, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be exact and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 슬롯 하는법 (visit this hyperlink) could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' practical choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 게임, bookmarkshome.Com, in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "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 showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas 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 the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked consider 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 were similar to natives. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing 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 intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method uses numerous sources of information including interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

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

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.