What Experts From The Field Of Pragmatic Want You To Know? > 자유게시판

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, 라이브 카지노; http://goodjobdongguan.com/home.php?mod=Space&uid=4936732, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 cultural and individual variations. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research used the DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's 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 situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every 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 were recorded and transcribing, and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing 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

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on 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 so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. Furthermore it will assist educators to 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 consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information including documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This 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 the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

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

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.