A Guide To Pragmatic In 2024 > 자유게시판

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners' speech.

Recent research used a DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always precise and 프라그마틱 무료 could misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for measuring 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 indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending 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 a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors like relational advantages. They described, 프라그마틱 이미지 슬롯 추천 (Canvas.instructure.com) for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will help them better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of 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 a research method that employs deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of various sources of data including interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex 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 which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.

The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.