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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they could draw on were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, right here on Hebian is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or 라이브 카지노 assessment.

Despite its limitations, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study various aspects, including politeness, turn taking, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence 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 basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they might face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method uses multiple data sources like interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.