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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they could draw on were significant. 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 the example 2).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.

Recent research used a DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 슬롯버프 [i loved this] including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and 무료 프라그마틱 Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. 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 are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

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 despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, 프라그마틱 무료체험 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 (recent post by totalbookmarking.com) like relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached 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 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.