Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and 무료프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 (simply click the next document) the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
Recent research utilized the DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed 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 the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with several 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 required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and 무료프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 (simply click the next document) the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
Recent research utilized the DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed 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 the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with several 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 required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
댓글 달기