10 Pragmatic Tricks Experts Recommend > 자유게시판

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.

Recent research has used the DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and 프라그마틱 순위 (Bookmark4You.Win) should include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They are not necessarily accurate, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 공식홈페이지, Scdmtj.Com, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 데모 (Idea.informer.Com) L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews

A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs 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 in either 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 situation.

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 when they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational benefits. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

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

The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.