코엔원

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

A recent study used the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and 프라그마틱 슬롯 read each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants comprised 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 L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, like relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea 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 employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.