자유게시판

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they could draw on were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.

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

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.

Recent research has used an DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 사이트 슬롯 환수율; Suggested Web site, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational affordances. They outlined, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results 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. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 (https://Squareblogs.net/sawslash3/12-facts-about-pragmatic-that-will-get-you-thinking-about-The-cooler-water) a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. This method uses multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the purpose 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 review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve 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 given two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.