Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to not criticize a strict professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has a few disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and 프라그마틱 카지노 information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue 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 investigate numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners speaking.
A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers cautioned, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and 프라그마틱 게임 데모 (Maps.Google.Cat) conventionally-indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated 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 intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to 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 scenario.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors such as relational affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources including documents, interviews, 프라그마틱 환수율 and observations to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick 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. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to not criticize a strict professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has a few disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and 프라그마틱 카지노 information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue 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 investigate numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners speaking.
A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers cautioned, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and 프라그마틱 게임 데모 (Maps.Google.Cat) conventionally-indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated 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 intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to 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 scenario.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors such as relational affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources including documents, interviews, 프라그마틱 환수율 and observations to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick 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. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.
댓글 달기