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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they could draw on were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has some drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.

A recent study used the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, 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 pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used 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 for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and 무료 프라그마틱 MQs either in their L1 or 프라그마틱 홈페이지 (1v 34 post to a company blog) their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational affordances. They described, for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. Moreover this will allow educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data including interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 슬롯 조작; click through the next article, further reducing their quality of response.

The participants in 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 of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.