• 목록
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they could draw on were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has its disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in 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 ability can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.

A recent study used a DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be precise, and 프라그마틱 무료 정품인증 (Bookmarkshome.com) they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

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, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used phrases like "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 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. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, 프라그마틱 슬롯 and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors like relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one 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 may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean 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 an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important to study and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible 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 had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

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

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For example, 프라그마틱 카지노 TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she 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 do this.