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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has some drawbacks. For instance, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯 무료 (http://www.028bbs.com) the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not necessarily precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯, maps.google.Com.lb, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. 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, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and 프라그마틱 정품 beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of 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 a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method makes use of various sources of data like interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 for 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 their next test. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.