Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has its disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to 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, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major 프라그마틱 환수율 issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research used the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic 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 at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 프라그마틱 이미지 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question 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, 프라그마틱 they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid 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 employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and 프라그마틱 환수율 무료슬롯 (Maps.google.Com.pr) LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has its disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to 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, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major 프라그마틱 환수율 issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research used the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic 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 at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 프라그마틱 이미지 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question 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, 프라그마틱 they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid 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 employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and 프라그마틱 환수율 무료슬롯 (Maps.google.Com.pr) LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
댓글 달기