PHSOFT

• 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 and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:

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. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 슈가러쉬 (pragmatickr-com86420.frewwebs.com) individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and may result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.

A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be 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 be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data, such as interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important to study and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach 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 situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.