• 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' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, 프라그마틱 플레이 and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 사이트 (go to this web-site) more steps could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine various aspects such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.

A recent study used an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are typically 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 test creators. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify 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 using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were 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 experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

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

Refusal Interviews

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted 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. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. 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 consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

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 test revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.

Additionally, the participants in 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 on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.