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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were important. The RIs from TS & ZL, 라이브 카지노 (justpin.date) for example, cited their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major 프라그마틱 정품 issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine a variety of issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.

Recent research utilized an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and 프라그마틱 정품 슬롯 팁 (Fridayad.In) then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism 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 by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 사이트 (Mybookmark.Stream) personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and affordances. They described, for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. Moreover it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding 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 reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and perception of the world.

The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.