• 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. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research utilized the DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They aren't always accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 플레이 (Https://Bookmarkfly.Com/) their ongoing lives, as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in 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, 프라그마틱 무료 did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship affordances. They outlined, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they might face when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not 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 cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs deep, 프라그마틱 플레이 participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data like documents, interviews, and observations, to confirm its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.