What Experts From The Field Want You To Know?
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they had access to were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL, 프라그마틱 추천 for example, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has its drawbacks. For instance the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across 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 study numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
A recent study utilized an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 the form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. In addition, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they had access to were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL, 프라그마틱 추천 for example, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has its drawbacks. For instance the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across 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 study numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
A recent study utilized an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 the form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. In addition, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.
- 이전글Explore Daycares Locations ? Lessons Learned From Google 24.10.28
- 다음글5 Helpful Classes About Daycare Near Me - Find The Best Daycares Near You That you will Always remember 24.10.28
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.