Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and may lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.
Recent research used a DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
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 aren't always correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' 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 with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, 프라그마틱 순위 CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question with several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
However, the interviewees 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 view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and 프라그마틱 슬롯 the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on 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 study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and may lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.
Recent research used a DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
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 aren't always correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' 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 with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, 프라그마틱 순위 CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question with several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
However, the interviewees 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 view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and 프라그마틱 슬롯 the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on 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 study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
댓글 달기