The Most Popular Pragmatic That Gurus Use 3 Things > 자유게시판

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were significant. RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT is unable to account for 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and could result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research used a DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal ability.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The 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 responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews for refusal

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 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 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational affordances. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 penalties they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. Furthermore, 프라그마틱 무료체험 this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 which ones could be left out. It is also useful to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.