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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and 슬롯 content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

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 was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.

The findings of the MQs and 프라그마틱 DCTs were then analyzed using 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 was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews

A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based 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 experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.