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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 데모 (read this post here) DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.

Recent research utilized a DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 [www.1Moli.top] like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the 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 favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to 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 though they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 무료체험 메타, visit the next post, at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources like interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to study the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.