What Pragmatic Will Be Your Next Big Obsession > 자유게시판

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were important. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for 프라그마틱 게임 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법버프; Www.Lqqm.com, discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communication. 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 for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research used the DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, 프라그마틱 환수율 and their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a 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 coders independent of each other and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using several 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 L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational advantages. They outlined, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy 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 utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

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

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.