How Much Do Pragmatic Experts Earn? > 자유게시판

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 but it also has some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study numerous issues, 프라그마틱 슬롯 like politeness, turn-taking, 프라그마틱 정품확인 and 프라그마틱 무료게임 the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.

Recent research utilized the DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for 라이브 카지노 pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs and 프라그마틱 DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought 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. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere 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 resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea 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 explore a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data including documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.