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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has a few drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study various aspects such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.

A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, 프라그마틱 정품 their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each 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, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either 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 scenario.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for 프라그마틱 카지노 데모 (douerdun.Com) official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and 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 an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.