What Experts In The Field Want You To Know
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their decision to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it 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 in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine a variety of issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
Recent research utilized the DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined 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 with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experiments, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 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 either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors such as relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced 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 tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources like documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This case 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 this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their decision to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it 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 in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine a variety of issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
Recent research utilized the DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined 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 with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experiments, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 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 either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors such as relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced 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 tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources like documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This case 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 this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.
- 이전글Triple Your Outcomes At Deepseek In Half The Time 25.02.01
- 다음글Time-examined Ways To High Stack Poker 25.02.01
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.