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 were able to draw from were important. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has its disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and can result in 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 to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research used an DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and 프라그마틱 플레이 then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, 프라그마틱 데모 where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, such as relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources including documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly 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 ones can be skipped. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, 프라그마틱 플레이 pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, 프라그마틱 무료 and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they were able to draw from were important. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has its disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and can result in 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 to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research used an DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and 프라그마틱 플레이 then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, 프라그마틱 데모 where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, such as relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources including documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly 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 ones can be skipped. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, 프라그마틱 플레이 pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, 프라그마틱 무료 and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
댓글 달기