Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has its drawbacks. For example, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine various issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
Recent research used an DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. 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 such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always precise, and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that 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 when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and 프라그마틱 무료체험 RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was 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' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using several experiments, 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 complete the MQs either in their L1 or 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 CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subject to if they violated their social norms. 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 findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information like interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, 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 were more likely to select incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS for instance, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 claimed that she was difficult to approach and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has its drawbacks. For example, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine various issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
Recent research used an DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. 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 such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always precise, and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that 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 when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and 프라그마틱 무료체험 RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was 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' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using several experiments, 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 complete the MQs either in their L1 or 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 CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subject to if they violated their social norms. 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 findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information like interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, 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 were more likely to select incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS for instance, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 claimed that she was difficult to approach and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
댓글 달기