The Reasons Pragmatic Isn't As Easy As You Imagine > 자유게시판

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they could draw on were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

Recent research utilized a 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 then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for 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 L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship affordances. For 무료 프라그마틱프라그마틱 슬롯 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 - click through the up coming website page, instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

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

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.