How To Tell If You're In The Right Position For Pragmatic > 자유게시판

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and 프라그마틱 플레이 ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and may lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for 프라그마틱 무료 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 to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.

A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, 프라그마틱 순위 DCTs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship affordances. They outlined, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior 무료 프라그마틱 of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

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 second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.