5 Pragmatic Lessons From The Professionals > 자유게시판

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has some drawbacks. For example, the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 [visit this website] may lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used 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 evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The central question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform 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 asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, like relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful 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 called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.

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

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.