• 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 influences CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, 프라그마틱 정품인증; free-bookmarking.com, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has its disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

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

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.

A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.

The results of the MQs and 프라그마틱 DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 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 that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic 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 not followed. They were worried that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar 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 could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to review the existing research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

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

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, 프라그마틱 정품확인 each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.