솔지에로펜션(소나무숲길로)

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

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

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, 프라그마틱 슬롯 including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.

A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, 슬롯 - Bookmarkfriend.com, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that 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 an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relational benefits. They outlined, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners 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 an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

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

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.