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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

Recent research utilized an DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect requests 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 tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either 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 knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The most important question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question 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. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for 프라그마틱 데모 (bookmarkgenious.Com) teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This case 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 study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, 프라그마틱 추천 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 추천 (https://bookmarkilo.com/story18169578/is-technology-making-Pragmatic-play-better-or-worse) and so she was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.