A Brief History Of Pragmatic In 10 Milestones > 자유게시판

• 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 learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their decision to not criticize a strict professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

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 alter the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

Recent research utilized a DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study 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 lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, 프라그마틱 플레이 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 사이트 (ezproxy.cityu.edu.hk said) and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

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 several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or 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 follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

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

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Furthermore it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of various sources of data, such as documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was based upon 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 experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 second year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select 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 pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.