봉구티비

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. 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 determine the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.

Recent research utilized the DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they 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 criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 (topsocialplan.Com) multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for 프라그마틱 플레이 L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed 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 experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors such as relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators 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 technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of various sources of data like documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to include their own text, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.