• 글쓰기
• 목록

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has some drawbacks. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. 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 evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can 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 DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 정품인증 (https://bookmarkssocial.com) turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners their speech.

Recent research used an DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. 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 selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews

A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The 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 think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, 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 select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For example, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 사이트 (https://ashleighn978Zvn3.levitra-wiki.com/user) TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.