자유게시판

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they had access to were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but it also has its drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

A recent study utilized a DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. 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 designed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and 프라그마틱 데모 무료 (Https://pragmatic-korea09752.prublogger.com/) conventionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at 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 MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 이미지 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 (Https://Geilebookmarks.Com/Story18050072/How-To-Resolve-Issues-With-Pragmatic) their current life histories as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy 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 the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also referred external factors, like relationship benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore this will allow educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea's 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 technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for research and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This study was based 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 test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and understanding of the world.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.