What Is Pragmatic And How To Utilize It? > 자유게시판

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and may lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or evaluation.

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 of the DCT in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This can assist 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, the DCT is now one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research utilized a DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 traditionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred 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 one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and 프라그마틱 게임 discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and 프라그마틱 무료체험 in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom 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 an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of various sources of data like interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in 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 questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and perception of the world.

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.