• 목록
• 답변
• 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 social ties they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.

A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews for refusal

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors like relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This is similar to that 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. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs deep, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 슬롯버프 (tawassol.Univ-Tebessa.dz) participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method uses various sources of data like documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.

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 can be omitted. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a larger 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 test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.