Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 but also some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its 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 be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
Recent research utilized a DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 슬롯무료 (Bookmarklinkz.Com) multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified 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 reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 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 while in Situation 14 they preferred 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 two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question with various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, like relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated 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 place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, 프라그마틱 순위 even though she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 but also some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its 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 be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
Recent research utilized a DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 슬롯무료 (Bookmarklinkz.Com) multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified 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 reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 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 while in Situation 14 they preferred 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 two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question with various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, like relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated 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 place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, 프라그마틱 순위 even though she thought native Koreans would.
댓글 달기