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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learner-internal elements, were important. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example, cited their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and could result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness is a plus. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.

Recent research has used the DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and 프라그마틱 무료 순위 - Bookmark-Master.Com - z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to 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 convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding process was iterative, 프라그마틱 정품 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 환수율 (Https://Hindibookmark.Com/Story19691353/Why-Pragmatic-Free-Slots-Is-Fast-Becoming-The-Trendiest-Thing-Of-2024) with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Interviews for refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험; Letsbookmarkit.com, 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 so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, like relationship benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. 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 may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of 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 a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research 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 both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

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 this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add 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 achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in 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 which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.