코엔원

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they could draw on were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

Recent research utilized an DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess refusal ability.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and 프라그마틱 무료게임 multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 their ongoing life histories as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. 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 analyzed with descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used 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 diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and 프라그마틱 게임 RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might 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-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called 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 students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.