These Are Myths And Facts Behind Pragmatic > 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. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed 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. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid 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 among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research utilized the DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like a questionnaire or video recordings. 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 based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results indicated that the 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 affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 정품 사이트 (https://socialeweb.com/) which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 [travialist.com] with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? 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. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably 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 the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources including interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also helpful to review the existing research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.