솔지에로펜션(소나무숲길로)

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they had access to were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, 프라그마틱 데모 but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

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 politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can aid 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 effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

A recent study utilized an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

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 creators. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of 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 with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a given situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 카지노 (next) z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 슈가러쉬 (Going In this article) then coded. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs 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 asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. 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 preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

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 ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case in a broader theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.