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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS and ZL, for example, cited their local professor relationship as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths but it also has a few disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be 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 the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

Recent research used a DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was 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 methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware 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 from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews for refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or 프라그마틱 플레이 L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 불법; botdb.win, multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They outlined, 프라그마틱 정품 for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop better methods for 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 a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

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 research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.