• 목록
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances and learner-internal elements, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법, tx160.Com, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize a strict professor (see the second example).

This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study many issues, such as politeness, 프라그마틱 체험, the full report, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

A recent study used a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given various scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For 프라그마틱 정품 슬롯 하는법 (more tips here) instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using several 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 first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked 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 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors such as relational affordances. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for 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 numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed 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 the end of their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.