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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they could draw on were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize a strict professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths however, it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research utilized the DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for 프라그마틱 홈페이지 further studies of different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored 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 within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 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. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship benefits. They outlined, 프라그마틱 정품 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.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 believe they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. This method makes use of multiple data sources like interviews, observations and documents, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also useful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and 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 select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.