Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they had access to were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see 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 (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn taking, and 프라그마틱 사이트 lexical selection. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study utilized an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with an array 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 refusal methods like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, 프라그마틱 게임 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 환수율 (Https://yesbookmarks.com/) however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and 프라그마틱 정품확인 the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored 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 one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study 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 departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they had access to were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see 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 (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn taking, and 프라그마틱 사이트 lexical selection. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study utilized an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with an array 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 refusal methods like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, 프라그마틱 게임 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 환수율 (Https://yesbookmarks.com/) however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and 프라그마틱 정품확인 the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored 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 one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study 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 departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.
댓글 달기