5 Pragmatic Projects That Work For Any Budget > 자유게시판

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 순위 (our website) the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess 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 provided. 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 cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 (Www.Play56.Net) diverging from both L1 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.