Why Is It So Useful? In COVID-19? > 자유게시판

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. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, 프라그마틱 카지노 does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully prior to 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. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. 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 analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The key issue in research on pragmatics is: 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 (bookmarkmargin.Com) why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

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 even when they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and 프라그마틱 Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for 프라그마틱 정품인증 future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and perception of the world.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.