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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages however, it also has some drawbacks. For example, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 정품 사이트 - Lovewiki.Faith, 무료 프라그마틱 analyzing the connection between prosody, 프라그마틱 데모 information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners speaking.

Recent research used the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted 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. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. 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, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. Furthermore it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts and 프라그마틱 무료체험 were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.