• 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, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

Recent research has used an DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and 프라그마틱 순위 이미지 - martinp872iyf9.ouyawiki.Com - Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the 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, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews

The central question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they might face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험무료 (simply click the following internet page) in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources like documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to study specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.