5 Pragmatic Projects For Every Budget > 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 the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a major factor 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most important tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as the manner of speaking, 프라그마틱 불법 홈페이지 (longshots.wiki) turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

A recent study utilized an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for 프라그마틱 정품확인 L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' practical choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior 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 words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Refusal Interviews

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. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

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 when they were able to create patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or 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 view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to review the existing research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to 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 include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 in 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 that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.