GOUTERGALLERY

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communication. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and could cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

A recent study used an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers 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 used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.

The results of the MQs, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and 라이브 카지노 then coded by two coders from different companies. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on 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 responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This is 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 could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and 프라그마틱 정품인증 testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained 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 for their next test. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.