Pragmatic Tips From The Most Effective In The Industry > 자유게시판

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, 프라그마틱 무료게임 RIs from TS and 프라그마틱 ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or assessment.

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

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine various aspects, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

Recent research has used the DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal ability.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). 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 performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 their decisions were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted to answer this question using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. 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, on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, such as relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

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

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.