How To Tell If You're Prepared To Go After Pragmatic > 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 relational affordances they were able to draw from were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT, for 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and may cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers study the role of 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 analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners their speech.

Recent research used a DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like design and 프라그마틱 플레이 content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 further research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

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, DCTs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, 프라그마틱 추천 and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either 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 rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that were similar to native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational advantages. They outlined, for 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.