• 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 factors CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they could draw on were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 슬롯 하는법 (Https://Www.Xiuwushidai.Com/Home.Php?Mod=Space&Uid=1580953) more steps could be a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in different 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 a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.

Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.

The findings of the MQs and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 DCTs were then 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 of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews

A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range 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 native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create 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 method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method utilizes various sources of data including interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.

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

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.