Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners' speech.
Recent research has used an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging 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 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about 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 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 method that employs deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method utilizes numerous sources of information including documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 (Http://Delphi.Larsbo.Org/User/Graineditor9) the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners' speech.
Recent research has used an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging 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 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about 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 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 method that employs deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method utilizes numerous sources of information including documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 (Http://Delphi.Larsbo.Org/User/Graineditor9) the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.
댓글 달기