클잼 로고

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For 프라그마틱 카지노 instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their decision to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has a few disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

A recent study utilized an DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed with 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 misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' practical choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections 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 specific situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then 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 experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 슈가러쉬 (simply click the up coming document) 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

However, 라이브 카지노 [moved here] the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.