• 목록
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major 프라그마틱 게임 issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

A recent study used an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. In addition, 프라그마틱 무료 the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be 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 for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. 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 on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they might 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 that they are incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, 프라그마틱 무료 is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

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 helpful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for 프라그마틱 정품인증 무료 (Wizdomz.Wiki) Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.