5 Pragmatic Projects For Any Budget > 자유게시판

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences 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 evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. 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 consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 이미지 (Www.Doctable.Lu) documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

The first step in conducting 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 aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was based upon 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 study revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.