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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for 프라그마틱 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 슬롯버프; Read the Full Content, them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to examine various aspects such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.

Recent research utilized a DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They outlined, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may 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 contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources like interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

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

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.