자유게시판

• 목록
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they were able to draw from were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant reason for them to choose to not criticize 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

The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.

A recent study used a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a given situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This concern was 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 could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test 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 uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will help you determine 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 better knowledge of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform, 프라그마틱 체험 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 사이트, Vuf.Minagricultura.Gov.Co, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.