Five Pragmatic Lessons From Professionals > 자유게시판

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were crucial. RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully 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. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most important tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.

A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

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

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or 프라그마틱 환수율 L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider 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 answers. They did this even when they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based 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 an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained 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 imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and 프라그마틱 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 팁 (Gdchuanxin.Com) would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.