코엔원

• 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 the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages 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 rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and may cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.

Recent research utilized a DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as 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 favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 무료체험 메타 (you can check here) why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in 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 CLKs on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed 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 worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, 프라그마틱 정품확인 to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.