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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were significant. For instance, 프라그마틱 이미지 무료 (https://natural-bookmark.com/story18059472/what-is-the-reason-why-pragmatic-slots-free-are-so-helpful-for-covid-19) RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

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

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, 프라그마틱 게임 슬롯 (visit the next page) DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.

A recent study utilized a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and 프라그마틱 이미지 (visit the next page) refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The key 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 by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses various sources of data, such as interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.

The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.