• 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 learner-internal elements, were important. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:

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. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 카지노 [the advantage] information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

Recent research used a DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess refusal ability.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, 프라그마틱 카지노 (https://listfav.com/) and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews for refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, 프라그마틱 무료체험 did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors such as relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third 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 understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.