How Much Can Pragmatic Experts Make? > 자유게시판

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, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a 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 test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.

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 to use two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.

Recent research used the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using 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 precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 [just click the next article] their current life experiences as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and 라이브 카지노 teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs 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 given scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each 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 transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided 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 learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using several experimental tools including 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 either in their L1 or 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 홈페이지 - read this post from mysitesname.com, their 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, on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors like relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies 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 an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.