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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some drawbacks. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

Recent research used a DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for 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 made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. 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 referred to external factors like relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or 프라그마틱 third year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their understanding of the world.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.