How Pragmatic Rose To The #1 Trend In Social Media > 자유게시판

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were important. RIs from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before it is used 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 alter social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 순위 (Bookmarkingworld.Review) more steps can be a plus. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

Recent research has used a DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 홈페이지 (King-Bookmark.Stream) and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose 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 discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs, 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 native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to 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 answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors such as relational affordances. For example, they described 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 their concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate 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.

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

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.