10 Pragmatic Tips All Experts Recommend > 자유게시판

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they could draw on were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has its drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can aid 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 is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study various issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.

A recent study utilized an DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프슬롯 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 (from the Pukkabookmarks blog) like content and 프라그마틱 추천 (click through the following web page) form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic 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, such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to create 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 an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.

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 when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.