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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has some drawbacks. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing 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 strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

A recent study utilized an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 무료 프라그마틱 2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 example, 프라그마틱 추천 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 favored 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 within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that employs deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.