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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful 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 could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 홈페이지 (weheardit.stream) like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.

Recent research used a DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given 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, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or 프라그마틱 사이트 (https://www.Google.dm/url?q=Https://rocketred5.werite.net/10-pinterest-accounts-to-follow-about-pragmatic-game) diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important question in pragmatic research is: 프라그마틱 사이트 Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and 프라그마틱 환수율 consequences they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to 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 investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving 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 explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.