• 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 the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has its disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or assessment.

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

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study used the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed 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 MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted 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 relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, 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 their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. They outlined, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for 프라그마틱 무료게임 future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior 프라그마틱 사이트 of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with 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 identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced 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) at their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.