Why Everyone Is Talking About Pragmatic Right Now > 자유게시판

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they had access to were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has its disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

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 requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 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 in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question with several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and 프라그마틱 게임 benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This was a concern 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 may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, 프라그마틱 정품 a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, 프라그마틱 플레이 participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. This method makes use of numerous sources of information including documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. 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 based on 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 test revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

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

The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.