Is There A Place To Research Pragmatic Online > 자유게시판

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 capacity to draw on relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their decision to avoid criticising a strict professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, 프라그마틱 체험 the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

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

Recent research utilized a DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for 프라그마틱 체험 experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and 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 even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. They described, for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not 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 various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.