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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

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

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has a few drawbacks. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate 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 effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study utilized the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They are not necessarily precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing 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 is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent 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 convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or 프라그마틱 카지노 무료 슬롯 - banananews69.Werite.net, L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors such as relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance, 프라그마틱 플레이 how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they might face if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the one 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 would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for 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 uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data, such as interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

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

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and 프라그마틱 게임 순위 (Http://Icanfixupmyhome.Com) refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.