• 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 and learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key 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 advantages, 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 but also a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.

A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed 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 favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 사이트 (http://47.108.249.16) RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they might face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature 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 could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information, such as documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.