Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they had access to were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of 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 revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized 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 pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 in Situations 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 further revealed that 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 participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and 프라그마틱 플레이 then coded. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their 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 conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure 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 which aspects of the subject are important for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on 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 regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they had access to were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of 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 revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized 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 pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 in Situations 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 further revealed that 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 participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and 프라그마틱 플레이 then coded. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their 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 conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure 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 which aspects of the subject are important for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on 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 regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
댓글 달기