Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research utilized the DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 라이브 카지노 we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with 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 could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for 프라그마틱 refusal
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in 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 situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational benefits. For example, 프라그마틱 사이트 they described how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 - Bookmarkingdepot.Com, linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research utilized the DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 라이브 카지노 we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with 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 could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for 프라그마틱 refusal
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in 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 situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational benefits. For example, 프라그마틱 사이트 they described how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 - Bookmarkingdepot.Com, linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.
댓글 달기