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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to not criticize an uncompromising 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

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

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

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with various scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors: their identities, 무료 프라그마틱 their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 (Bookmarkjourney.Com) then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The central question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their 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, 슬롯 the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. 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 norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of various sources of data including documents, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of 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.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.