Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they could draw on were important. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, 프라그마틱 이미지 such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.
A recent study used an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and 프라그마틱 정품확인 conventionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as 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 required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and 슬롯 Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases 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 showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personality and 프라그마틱 무료게임 multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, 프라그마틱 정품 a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. This method utilizes multiple data sources like documents, interviews, and observations, to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which could be left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were aiming for 슬롯 level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they could draw on were important. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, 프라그마틱 이미지 such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.
A recent study used an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and 프라그마틱 정품확인 conventionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as 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 required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and 슬롯 Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases 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 showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personality and 프라그마틱 무료게임 multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, 프라그마틱 정품 a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. This method utilizes multiple data sources like documents, interviews, and observations, to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which could be left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were aiming for 슬롯 level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
댓글 달기