10 Healthy Habits To Use Pragmatic > 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 social ties they could draw on were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

A recent study used the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests, 프라그마틱 불법 and a lesser 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 such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 (Pragmatic19864.Blogzet.com) choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using several 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 to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relationship benefits. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to study unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, 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 extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved 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 and understanding understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. 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 difficult to talk to, and therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.