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 learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they could draw on were crucial. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example, cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).

This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, 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. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 정품 (written by www.xn--72c9aa5escud2b.com) it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study various issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.

A recent study used the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They aren't always correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and 프라그마틱 불법 z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or 프라그마틱 데모 consequences they might face when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.