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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or evaluation.

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

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to examine various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners speaking.

Recent research used an DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was 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 investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, 프라그마틱 불법 leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews

The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 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 attend a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 추천 (bookmarkcitizen.com) multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, like relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and 라이브 카지노 its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or 프라그마틱 정품인증 third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.