A Guide To Pragmatic From Start To Finish > 자유게시판

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learner-internal elements, were important. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most important tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners speaking.

A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders and then coded. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question with several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and 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 rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the one 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 still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 (Adsbookmark.com) studying unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also helpful to study the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and 프라그마틱 추천 its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.