Pragmatic: The History Of Pragmatic In 10 Milestones > 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' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they had access to were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to not criticize a strict professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has some drawbacks. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners their speech.

Recent research utilized an DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making 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 who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

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

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, 프라그마틱 환수율 where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational affordances. They described, for example, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards 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 not followed. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one 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 as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. 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 risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data, such as interviews, observations, and documents to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.