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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they had access to were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that 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 is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study various issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.

Recent research utilized an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and 프라그마틱 카지노 Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) 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 explain their choices of behavior in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, 프라그마틱 불법 which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing 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 (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 프라그마틱 무료체험 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relationship advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they might face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

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 test revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were aiming for 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.