What Experts From The Field Want You To Know > 자유게시판

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 조작 [https://scrapbookmarket.com/story18324437/What-Do-you-know-About-Pragmatic-recommendations] reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. This is why 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 to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.

Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as 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 with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined 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 experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants were comprised 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 asked to reflect on and 프라그마틱 환수율 discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, such as relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced 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 as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data, such as interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

Moreover, 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 their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.