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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 무료 슬롯버프 (read article) assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, 프라그마틱 체험, find out here now, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody across 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 analyze various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research has used the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read 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 for refusal

The central question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors such as relational benefits. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.