How A Weekly Pragmatic Project Can Change Your Life > 자유게시판

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and 프라그마틱 불법 슬롯무료 - pragmatickr13333.onzeblog.Com, information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

A recent study used the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given 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 cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.

The results of the MQs, 프라그마틱 카지노 불법 (Bookmarkangaroo.Com) DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.

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

The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.