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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has a few drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, 프라그마틱 무료체험 including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and 프라그마틱 환수율 (www.maanation.com) form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be precise, and 프라그마틱 정품확인 they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to 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 specific situation.

The findings of the MQs and 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 insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and 프라그마틱 무료체험 transcribed by two coders who were independent who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process, 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

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 were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information including interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze specific or complicated 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 objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted 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 study showed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.