Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they had access to were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and could cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 like manner of speaking, turn-taking, 프라그마틱 무료체험 and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study employed a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered 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 experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. 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 concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based 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 showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they had access to were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see example 2).This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and could cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 like manner of speaking, turn-taking, 프라그마틱 무료체험 and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study employed a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered 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 experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. 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 concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based 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 showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and refused to 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