코엔원

• 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. RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and could cause overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to examine various aspects, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners speaking.

Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition 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 reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and 프라그마틱 게임 L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews for refusal

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. 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 norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors like relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university, 라이브 프라그마틱 카지노, www.google.com.om, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For example, 프라그마틱 무료게임 슬롯 조작 (https://xs.Xylvip.com) TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.