Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major 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 study numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research has used an DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and 프라그마틱 환수율 불법 (Www.1V34.Com) Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 무료게임 their ongoing life experiences and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) 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 a pragmatic behavior 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 employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. 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 revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs 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 complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
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 when they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop better methods for 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 an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data including interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major 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 study numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research has used an DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and 프라그마틱 환수율 불법 (Www.1V34.Com) Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 무료게임 their ongoing life experiences and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) 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 a pragmatic behavior 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 employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. 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 revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs 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 complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
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 when they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop better methods for 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 an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data including interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
댓글 달기