?>
線上FAQ分類: QuestionsWhy Pragmatic Will Be Your Next Big Obsession?
Claribel Tyner asked 2 週 ago

Study of Chinese Learners’ Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs’ awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to not criticize a strict professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important 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 strengths but it also has its drawbacks. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students’ refusal skills. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작버프 (jszst.Com.cn) such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren’t always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners’ pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications 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’s (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as “sorry” and “thank you.” This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs’ preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. 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 transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews

A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would consider them “foreigners” and believe they are incompetent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, 프라그마틱 홈페이지, King-bookmark.Stream, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text, or “garbage,” to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level 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 questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For 프라그마틱 홈페이지 example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.

Why Pragmatic Will Be Your Next Big Obsession?
?>