• 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 the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners' speech.

A recent study used a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. 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 requires more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using 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 of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and 라이브 카지노 that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 카지노 (simply click the following internet site) teaching.

First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and 프라그마틱 데모 [click through the following article] RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, such as relational advantages. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study unique or complex issues that are difficult to 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 you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

Additionally, the participants in this 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 to reach level 6 on 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 which involved interactions with their interlocutors and 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 personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.