5 Pragmatic Projects For Every Budget > 자유게시판

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major reason for them to choose to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.

A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The most important question in pragmatic research 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. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and 프라그마틱 순위 benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 무료 (Images.google.bg) intercultural rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and 프라그마틱 정품확인 (Humanlove.Stream) penalties they might face 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 unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in 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 questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.