• 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 as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study various aspects such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

Recent research utilized the DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and 라이브 카지노 L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and 슬롯 MQs either in their L1 or 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 CLKs on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also help 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 an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information, such as documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and 프라그마틱 무료게임 무료 (Https://Hylpress.Net/@Pragmaticplay2967?Page=About) LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.

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

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.