Are You Able To Research Pragmatic Online > 자유게시판

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances 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 a significant reason for them to choose to not criticize the strictness of a 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

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.

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 characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners their speech.

Recent research utilized a DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and 프라그마틱 데모 cultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 even though she believed native Koreans would.