• 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 their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they could draw on were important. RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.

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

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, 프라그마틱 and lexical choice. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.

Recent research utilized a DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), 프라그마틱 사이트 metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Interviews with Refusal

The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. 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 resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, 프라그마틱 무료체험 is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and 프라그마틱 이미지 observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.