This Is The Myths And Facts Behind Pragmatic > 자유게시판

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners speaking.

Recent research used a 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 were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and 프라그마틱 환수율 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 팁 (listbell.Com) 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 revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 - Pragmatickorea20864.Ltfblog.Com, recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea's 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 intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. This method uses multiple data sources including documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding 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] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test 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, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.