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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they could draw on were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has its disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable 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 manipulate social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

Recent research has used an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 슬롯 추천 (More inspiring ideas) more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 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 resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors such as relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 (http://Gdchuanxin.com/) is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method makes use of numerous sources of information including documents, interviews, and observations, to confirm its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

The first step in the case study is to 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 review the existing literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.