코엔원

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 홈페이지 - lovebookmark.win - ability to draw on relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, 프라그마틱 사이트 but also a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter 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 impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

A recent study utilized an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world 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 versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at 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 at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 순위 (Stairways.Wiki) in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found 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 a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs 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 their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for 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 utilizes numerous sources of information like interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which could be left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon 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 experiment showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked 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 co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance 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.