What You Can Use A Weekly Pragmatic Project Can Change Your Life > 자유게시판

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could 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 is now one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and 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 requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed 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 DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

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

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 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 also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Refusal Interviews

A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreigners" and 프라그마틱 슬롯 think they were unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for 프라그마틱 무료게임 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트무료 (click the following article) 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 an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like interviews, observations, and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

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

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.