Pragmatic Strategies From The Top In The Industry > 자유게시판

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they had access to were important. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

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

In the field linguistics, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

Recent research has used an DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained 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 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 with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯 사이트 (kingbookmark.Com) L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "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 CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decisions 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 advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources like interviews, observations, and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance 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.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.