DokuWiki

Edit the page and hit Save. See syntax for Wiki syntax. Please edit the page only if you can improve it. If you want to test some things, learn to make your first steps on the playground.

(Image: [[https://pragmatickr.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/98EBBC91ECA4-B2ECB48AECACA6EDB88AEA8C9DEDB8.png]])Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

(Image: [[https://pragmatickr.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/94EBBCB7EB888BED849DEAB8A7EDB1-768x439.jpg]])In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of 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 is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has a few disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.

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

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.

A recent study used the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and  [[https://images.google.com.gt/url?q=https://historydb.date/wiki/10_Real_Reasons_People_Hate_Pragmatickr|무료슬롯 프라그마틱]] based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities,  [[http://shenasname.ir/ask/user/pliertimer2|무료슬롯 프라그마틱]] their ongoing lives and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or  [[http://bbs.qupu123.com/space-uid-2832633.html|프라그마틱 슬롯 조작]] not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of 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 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly by 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 captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The central question in pragmatic research is:  [[https://forsyth-lunde-3.blogbright.net/what-is-pragmatic-and-how-to-utilize-what-is-pragmatic-and-how-to-use-1726305926/|프라그마틱 슈가러쉬]] 슬롯무료 ([[http://ezproxy.cityu.edu.hk/login?url=https://selfless.wiki/wiki/Why_We_Do_We_Love_Pragmatic_Official_Website_And_You_Should_Also|http://ezproxy.cityu.Edu.hk]]) Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. They outlined, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. Furthermore this will allow educators to 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 in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached 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 for their next test. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.

Edit summary

Note: By editing this page you agree to license your content under the following license: CC Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International