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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing 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 test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has a few drawbacks. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and could lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

Recent research has used the DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "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 revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, 프라그마틱 불법 were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews for refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question by using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 프라그마틱 무료체험 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and 프라그마틱 불법 the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

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

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 even though she thought native Koreans would.