공지
5 Pragmatic Lessons From Professionals
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study various aspects that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
Recent research used the DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those 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 looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas 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 in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in 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 situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and Www.Pragmatickr.Com think 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 no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study various aspects that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
Recent research used the DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those 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 looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas 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 in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in 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 situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and Www.Pragmatickr.Com think 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 no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.
댓글 0
