환기나라

Q&A

home › 고객센터 › Q&A
환기나라 Q&A
제목 What Pragmatic Should Be Your Next Big Obsession?
작성자 Vivian Bartlett 작성일 24-10-22 23:31
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study used a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be accurate, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect requests and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 공식홈페이지 (Viewtool.Com) utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for 프라그마틱 순위 (dahan.com.Tw) L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found 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 revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or 프라그마틱 정품인증 dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders, were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.