전체검색

• 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. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see examples 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 (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 (Bbs.Qupu123.Com) investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can help 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 to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed 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 familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of 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, were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. They also discussed, 프라그마틱 정품확인 게임 (www.Google.com.pk) for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

However, 프라그마틱 게임 the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreigners" and 프라그마틱 think they were incompetent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Moreover it will assist 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 consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and 프라그마틱 게임 LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.