The Most Popular Pragmatic It's What Gurus Do Three Things > 자유게시판

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

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

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine a variety of issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

A recent study used the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and 무료 프라그마틱 content. These criterion are intuitive and 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors that included their identities, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

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

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 슬롯 프라그마틱 사이트 (visit these guys) transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. This method utilizes numerous sources of information like interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.

Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.