A Reference To Pragmatic From Start To Finish > 자유게시판

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example, cited their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.

A recent study used an DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with various 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 like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 추천 (sell) while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational affordances. For 프라그마틱 환수율 example, they described how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.