Your Family Will Thank You For Having This 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' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they could draw on were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and could result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being 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. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine various aspects such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and 프라그마틱 정품확인 (My Web Site) lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

Recent research utilized a DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and 프라그마틱 불법 a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined 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 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' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred 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 pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews

A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question by using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and 프라그마틱 데모 LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.