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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they could draw on were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some drawbacks. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study employed an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: 프라그마틱 데모 Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 such as DCTs MQs, 프라그마틱 환수율 DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, like relational advantages. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 the effects of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources including interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to study specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals 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 helpful to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a wider 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 experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 further reducing the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.