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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learner-internal elements, were important. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance, cited their local professor 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 추천 (Home) relationship as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

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 choices were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, 프라그마틱 무료 공식홈페이지 (her explanation) and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, like relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea 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 investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and to 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 specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on 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.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose 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 personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.