봉구티비

• 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, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has its drawbacks. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.

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 examine various issues such as politeness, turn taking, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

Recent research has used the DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

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

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to 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 transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, such as 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. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the one 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 as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 무료체험 [Pragmatickorea45556.wikirecognition.com] a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that employs deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, 프라그마틱 데모 HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.