5 Pragmatic Lessons From Professionals > 자유게시판

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were significant. For instance, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages but it also has a few disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to examine various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred 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 within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 read each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to create better methods for 프라그마틱 무료게임 무료체험 슬롯버프 (https://pragmatickr80111.mywikiparty.com/) teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what 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 understanding of the topic and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

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

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.