Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has its disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine a variety of issues, including politeness, turn taking, 프라그마틱 이미지 슈가러쉬 (https://stamfordtutor.stamford.edu/profile/deskfrance1/) and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs often 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, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought 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. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed 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. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based 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 a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose 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 beneficial to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has its disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine a variety of issues, including politeness, turn taking, 프라그마틱 이미지 슈가러쉬 (https://stamfordtutor.stamford.edu/profile/deskfrance1/) and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs often 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, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought 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. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed 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. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based 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 a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose 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 beneficial to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
댓글 달기