• 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 pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they could draw on were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They aren't always accurate, and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 프라그마틱 무료체험 무료 슬롯 (mouse click the following post) 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or 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 resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and affordances. They outlined, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or 프라그마틱 홈페이지 penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data including documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and 프라그마틱 카지노 [Http://Bbs.01Bim.Com/Home.Php?Mod=Space&Uid=1315934] understanding perception of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were 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 the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.