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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in 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. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.

Recent research utilized a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as a questionnaire or 프라그마틱 순위 슬롯 환수율 (you can find out more) video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 (http://icanfixupmyhome.com/considered_opinions/index.php?action=profile;area=forumprofile;u=2516256) content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a given situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the 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 were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question by using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked 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 a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors like relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to create better methods for 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 uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved 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 regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.