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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used 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 can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.

A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and 프라그마틱 환수율 video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 라이브 카지노 - echobookmarks.Com - reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified 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 in order to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They outlined, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed 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 for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources, such as interviews, 프라그마틱 플레이 슬롯 하는법 (simply click the up coming internet page) observations and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

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 the end of their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.