Pragmatic 101: The Ultimate Guide For Beginners > 자유게시판

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to examine various issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

A recent study used an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and 프라그마틱 순위 relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analyzed 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 their selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using several 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 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, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or 프라그마틱 정품인증 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천버프 (Yogicentral.Science) consequences they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer 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 understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that employs deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data, such as documents, interviews, and observations, to confirm its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

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

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.