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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and 슬롯 the relational affordances they could draw on were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 turn-taking, 프라그마틱 카지노 and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study used the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 정품확인방법 (visit this backlink) based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be precise, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the 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 showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience 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 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. 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 independent of each other and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful 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 enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses multiple data sources including interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also useful to study the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.