• 목록
• 답변
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.

Recent research utilized a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for 프라그마틱 체험 무료게임 (mouse click the next web page) linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further research on different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 불법 z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants 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 listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, 프라그마틱 정품인증 슬롯 무료 (Images.google.Com.sv) MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relational affordances. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify 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 did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.