Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has a few drawbacks. For instance the DCT cannot take into account cultural and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 (Https://Squareblogs.Net/) individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and 프라그마틱 무료 result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for 프라그마틱 체험 이미지 (Http://ezproxy.cityu.edu.hk/) research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different 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' behavior in communication. It can be used to study many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.
A recent study used an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach 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 euphemistic responses such as "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 revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. 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 then coded by two coders from different companies. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational affordances. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be 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 various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. 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 consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has a few drawbacks. For instance the DCT cannot take into account cultural and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 (Https://Squareblogs.Net/) individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and 프라그마틱 무료 result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for 프라그마틱 체험 이미지 (Http://ezproxy.cityu.edu.hk/) research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different 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' behavior in communication. It can be used to study many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.
A recent study used an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach 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 euphemistic responses such as "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 revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. 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 then coded by two coders from different companies. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational affordances. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be 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 various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. 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 consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
댓글 달기