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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to avoid criticising a strict professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, 슬롯 (simply click the next website page) for example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally the DCT can be biased and could lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

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

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 and lexical selection. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

Recent research has used an DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not necessarily precise, and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 추천 (Https://maps.google.cv/url?Q=https://squareblogs.net/perchstorm3/You-are-responsible-for-the-pragmatic-product-authentication-Budget-twelve) they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity 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 toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based 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 employs intensive, participant-centered research 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 study complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

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

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.