Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they had access to were significant. For instance, 프라그마틱 무료체험 RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major reason for them to choose to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Additionally the DCT is susceptible to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in 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. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and 프라그마틱 정품확인 the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research used a DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each 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 coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, 프라그마틱 플레이 giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, 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 프라그마틱 정품인증 MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk 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 makes use of multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they had access to were significant. For instance, 프라그마틱 무료체험 RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major reason for them to choose to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Additionally the DCT is susceptible to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in 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. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and 프라그마틱 정품확인 the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research used a DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each 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 coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, 프라그마틱 플레이 giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, 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 프라그마틱 정품인증 MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk 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 makes use of multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.
댓글 달기