• 목록
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has a few drawbacks. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine various 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 has used the DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 슬롯 팁 (New141.online) traditionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to 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 who were independent and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs 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 in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that resembled native speakers. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test 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 uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and 프라그마틱 정품 documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or 프라그마틱 무료게임 (images.google.com.my) complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which could be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was based 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 test showed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.