자유게시판

• 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 and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant reason for them to choose to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.

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

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

A recent study used a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and 프라그마틱 추천 무료게임 (https://socialbookmarknew.win/story.php?title=this-Weeks-top-stories-about-pragmatic-free-game-pragmatic-free-game) to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about 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 despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.