10 Pragmatic Tricks Experts Recommend > 자유게시판

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were crucial. For 프라그마틱 사이트 플레이 (xs.Xylvip.com) instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

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 use two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as 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 for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personality and 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational benefits. They described, for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and 프라그마틱 정품확인 penalties they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

The first step in the 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 should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.