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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Additionally the DCT is susceptible to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.

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

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors 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 employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

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 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 explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 이미지 (www.optionshare.Tw) like relationship affordances. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor 프라그마틱 플레이 at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data including interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify 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 she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.