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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were important. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research used the DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences 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 L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, 프라그마틱 순위 (Www.Google.Dm) DCTs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational affordances. For 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 무료 슬롯 (shorl.Com) example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators create 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 method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, 프라그마틱 정품인증 and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

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

The interviewees were given two scenarios, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.