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 influences CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were significant. For instance, RIs from 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 examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has a few disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or 프라그마틱 정품확인 evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

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

A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For 프라그마틱 불법 instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted 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 code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature 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 may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to 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 strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data including interviews, observations, and 프라그마틱 정품확인 documents to prove its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and 프라그마틱 LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating 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 of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.