Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 the DCT is susceptible to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
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 benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 순위 (Intern.Ee.Aeust.Edu.Tw) metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of 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 revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
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 could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational affordances. They outlined, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. 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 as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses multiple data sources like interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and 프라그마틱 순위 which are best left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
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 study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed 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 achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload, 프라그마틱 순위 even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 the DCT is susceptible to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
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 benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 순위 (Intern.Ee.Aeust.Edu.Tw) metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of 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 revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.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 could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational affordances. They outlined, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. 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 as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses multiple data sources like interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and 프라그마틱 순위 which are best left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
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 study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed 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 achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload, 프라그마틱 순위 even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.