• 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 and learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL, for 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in different 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 investigate various aspects that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

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

DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The 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 adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They described, for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to study the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 조작, bookmarkize.com noted, understanding and their understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.