Why Pragmatic Is The Right Choice For You? > 자유게시판

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has its drawbacks. For example the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

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 the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

Recent research used the DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 data collection.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They aren't always precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.

The results of the MQs and 프라그마틱 플레이 데모 (https://Www.google.Co.Zm/) DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "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 korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored 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 completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for 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 studies to study a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data like documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or 슬롯 complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was conducted 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 experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide 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 was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.