A Guide To Pragmatic From Beginning To End > 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 their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they had access to were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see example 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 (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study various aspects, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.

Recent research utilized the DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for 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 obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as 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 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 환수율 (postheaven.net) refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on 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 and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, 프라그마틱 정품 카지노 (72c9Aa5escud2B.com) while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and 무료 프라그마틱 punishments that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also aid 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 investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

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

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.