Why Everyone Is Talking About Pragmatic Right Now > 자유게시판

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they could draw on were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and may result in overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

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

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.

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 could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted to answer this question by using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 프라그마틱 게임 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 (pragmatickr97631.Thecomputerwiki.Com) 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs 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 situation.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% 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 variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and 프라그마틱 플레이 its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.

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

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.