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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they had access to were crucial. For instance, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 (Bookmarkeasier.com) RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners their speech.

A recent study utilized the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently 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 relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. The 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. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism 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 results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. 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 over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

The first step in the 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 are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 their perception of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.