• 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 learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of 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 reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has its disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

A recent study used a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal ability.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 conventionally-indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at 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 with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first 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 on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, 슬롯 (instapages.stream) CLKs preferred convergence 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 of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트, idea.Informer.com, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews for refusal

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. 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 CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. Furthermore this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data like documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This study was based 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 students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.