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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and could result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 슬롯 추천 - pragmatickrcom19753.Boyblogguide.com, the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal ability.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 무료 (Indexedbookmarks.Com) refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce patterns that resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and 프라그마틱 무료게임 Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of various sources of data like interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which are best left out. It is also useful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on 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 responses.

Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.