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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant reason for them to choose to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

Recent research utilized the DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, 프라그마틱 무료체험 such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, 프라그마틱 플레이 and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 플레이 Z-tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process 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 how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs 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 to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors like relational advantages. For instance, 프라그마틱 순위 they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to create better methods for 프라그마틱 무료체험 공식홈페이지 (domsd.ru) teaching and testing Korean 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 an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources including interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific 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 goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this study were 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 aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.