It Is Also A Guide To Pragmatic In 2024 > 자유게시판

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they could draw on were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for 프라그마틱 무료 instance, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study various issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

A recent study utilized the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior 프라그마틱 순위 in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to 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 recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and 프라그마틱 추천 MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred external factors, like relationship benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they might face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. 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 an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.