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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example, cited their local professor relationship as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 무료체험 메타 (https://Pragmatickrcom02345.blogtov.com/) but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research utilized an DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined 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. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, 프라그마틱 체험 which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. 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 captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was conducted 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 the test revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

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

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.