5 Pragmatic Lessons Learned From Professionals > 자유게시판

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners' speech.

Recent research used the DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of 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 that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for 프라그마틱 불법 환수율 (Click Link) L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they might face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea 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 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 study unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, 프라그마틱 플레이 HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.