• 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 relational affordances they could draw on were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major 프라그마틱 무료스핀 슬롯 하는법 [http://www.kaseisyoji.com/] factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has a few drawbacks. For instance, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research used the DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. 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 with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and 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 responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

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 to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on 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 showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship affordances. They also discussed, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to 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 an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data like interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose 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 beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.