What Is Pragmatic? History Of Pragmatic In 10 Milestones > 자유게시판

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to not criticize a strict professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.

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

DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to 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 knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 공식홈페이지 (about his) the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and 프라그마틱 불법 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed 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 independent coders. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. 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 on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and 프라그마틱 불법 슬롯 조작 (about his) Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for 프라그마틱 불법 Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses various sources of data including documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important to study and which could be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and to 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 benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

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

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.