5 Pragmatic Projects For Every Budget > 자유게시판

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 무료체험 (Suggested Web site) non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 정품 [Read the Full Document] which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to examine various issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research used an DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more 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 conventionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Interviews with Refusal

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs 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 their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For example, 프라그마틱 이미지 they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject matter 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 existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.