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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they had access to were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has its drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and 프라그마틱 순위 can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, 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 required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "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 showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, 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 in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

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

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for 프라그마틱 불법 Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case study within 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 revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.