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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for 프라그마틱 무료 (Visit Webpage) further research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s 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. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and 프라그마틱 무료게임; Visit Webpage, intercultural rules of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.

In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.