솔지에로펜션(소나무숲길로)

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learning-internal factors, were significant. For 프라그마틱 불법 홈페이지 (http://www.annunciogratis.net/author/hillwood14) instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

Recent research has used an DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or 프라그마틱 추천, https://zzb.Bz/VSfwn, questionnaires. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced 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 useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators create better methods for 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information like interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 (72c9Aa5escud2b.com) which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate 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 answers.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at 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 comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.