• 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. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to not criticize a strict professor 라이브 카지노 (opencbc.Com) (see example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic 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 numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research utilized an DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They aren't always accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed 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 their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various experimental tools such as 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 to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For example, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 슬롯버프 (just click the up coming document) in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders and then coded. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational benefits. For 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 (https://www.play56.Net) instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to 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 a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses numerous sources of information including interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.