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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they were able to draw from were significant. RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

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

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, 프라그마틱 정품확인 turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.

A recent study used a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and 프라그마틱 사이트 추천 (easybookmark.Win) DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and 프라그마틱 정품확인 punishments that they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and 프라그마틱 이미지 place the case within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.