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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal variations in communication. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research used the DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of 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 refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 (this post) include other types of 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 creators. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal ability.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, 프라그마틱 사이트 and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Interviews with Refusal

The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 프라그마틱 카지노 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean 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 a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. This method makes use of various sources of data, such as interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which could be left out. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

Furthermore, the participants of this case 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 in their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.