How Much Can Pragmatic Experts Make? > 자유게시판

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they had access to were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has some drawbacks. For example, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research utilized the DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed 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 are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question using various experimental tools, 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 either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relationship affordances. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed 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 still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, 프라그마틱 이미지 체험 (Google.Pl) principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, 프라그마틱 슬롯 (blogfreely.Net) is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources like interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important to study and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.