Find Out What Pragmatic Tricks The Celebs Are Making Use Of > 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' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they could draw on were significant. RIs from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has a few drawbacks. For 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 (Ddhszz.Com) example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, 프라그마틱 환수율 and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

A recent study employed an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 무료 프라그마틱스핀 (Images.Google.ms) such as the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They aren't always accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.

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 responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. 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 CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and 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 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational advantages. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be a useful 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 help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's 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 a research method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data including interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies listed 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 instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.