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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has a few disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research has used the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and 프라그마틱 추천 L2 pragmatic norms 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 preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted 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 coding process was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For example, 프라그마틱 이미지 they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed 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. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform, 프라그마틱 무료 the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.