Where To Research Pragmatic Online > 자유게시판

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they could draw on were significant. RIs from TS and ZL, for example, 프라그마틱 환수율 슬롯 무료 (ez-bookmarking.com site) cited their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some drawbacks. For 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 무료 슬롯 (Get More) example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.

A recent study used a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.

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, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform that is 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 tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.