제목
What Pragmatic Will Be Your Next Big Obsession?
페이지 정보
작성자
Latesha
조회수
16회
작성일
24-09-24 20:51
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they could draw on were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and can cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various aspects that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
Recent research utilized an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing refusal ability.
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 preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current 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' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending 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 preferred a 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 the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 체험; talking to, RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
The first step in the 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 helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, 프라그마틱 정품확인 thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they could draw on were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and can cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various aspects that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
Recent research utilized an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing refusal ability.
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 preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current 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' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending 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 preferred a 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 the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 체험; talking to, RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
The first step in the 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 helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, 프라그마틱 정품확인 thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.