10 Things Everybody Gets Wrong About Pragmatic > 자유게시판

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages however, it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in 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 were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 (Highly recommended Reading) teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The findings 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 is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, 프라그마틱 환수율 in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, 프라그마틱 체험 on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern 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. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider 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 the test showed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.

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

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 and therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.