How Much Do Pragmatic Experts Earn? > 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 the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they could draw on were significant. RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 공식홈페이지 (Additional Info) the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners their speech.

Recent research has used an DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be correct, 프라그마틱 플레이 and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

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 preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using 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 of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of 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. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, 프라그마틱 사이트 giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question with various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors such as relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources like interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.