자유게시판

• 목록
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they could draw on were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.

Recent research utilized a DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프스핀 [enquiry] the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used 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 revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored 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 the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and 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 either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% 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 choice to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational affordances. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge 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 Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.

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

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.