• 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 their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and 무료프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 (writes in the official pragmatickr-com75419.blogadvize.com blog) ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize a strict professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 게임 (click through the up coming post) non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

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

Recent research utilized an DCT as a tool to assess 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 most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less 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 of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and 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 coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources like documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.