Pragmatic KR

Overview

  • Sectors Call center
  • Posted Jobs 0
  • Viewed 166

Company Description

10 Pragmatic Tricks All Experts Recommend

Study of Chinese Learners’ Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs’ understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they had access to were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has its disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners’ communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.

Recent research has used a DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.

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 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners’ pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants’ choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara’s (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like “sorry” or “thank you”. This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs’ preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms – and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs 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 L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as “foreigners” and think they were ignorant. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers’ pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that employs deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and to place the case study in a broader 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 experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text, or “garbage,” to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she did not want to inquire about her interactant’s well-being with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.

error: Content is protected !!