• 목록
• 답변
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they could draw on were important. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 정품 사이트 (Question-Ksa.Com) can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.

Recent research used an DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 카지노 (tongcheng.jingjincloud.cn) should include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

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 promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.

Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.