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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages however, it also has its drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important tools to analyze 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 be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world 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 to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. 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 identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas 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 in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in 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 pragmatic norms 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. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors like relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreigners" and 프라그마틱 불법 슬롯 조작 (Nerdgaming.Science) think they were ignorant. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators create 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 a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and 프라그마틱 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁무료 (delphi.larsbo.org) the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks 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 select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.