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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they could draw on were significant. RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).

This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally the DCT can be biased and can cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

A recent study utilized the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and 프라그마틱 무료체험 환수율 (icanfixupmyhome.Com) z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with a variety of experiments, 프라그마틱 무료게임 including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of 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 employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information, such as documents, interviews, and observations, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called 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 particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

The participants in 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 reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For example, 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 a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.