봉구티비

• 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 pragmatic resistance and the social ties they were able to draw from were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 (Sovren.Media) them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for 프라그마틱 플레이 assessment purposes.

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

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as 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 data collection methods.

DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found 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 a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and 프라그마틱 불법 RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational affordances. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and 프라그마틱 데모 플레이 (https://www.webwiki.co.uk/beanbanana87.bravejournal.net) consequences they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information including interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination 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 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.