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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many 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 can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners' speech.

A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, 프라그마틱 and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as 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 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: 프라그마틱 무료체험 why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their 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 rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.

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

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators develop 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 strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method makes use of various sources of data, such as documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or 프라그마틱 무료스핀 데모 (visit the up coming document) complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.