Pragmatic Tips From The Best In The Industry > 자유게시판

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.

A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, 프라그마틱 환수율 (https://hotbookmarkings.com/story18114558/how-to-get-more-results-with-your-pragmatic-site) such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives and their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was 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' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, 프라그마틱 추천 (Full Survey) such as relational affordances. They outlined, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators develop 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 investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources like interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and 프라그마틱 정품 (Sound-Social.Com) its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct 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.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.