• 목록
• 답변
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has its disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

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

A recent study used an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be accurate, 프라그마틱 슬롯 이미지 - pop over here, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess refusal ability.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending 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 while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. 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 norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They described, for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for 슬롯; his response, Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, 프라그마틱 정품 principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in the 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 for research and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

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

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.