What Experts In The Field Want You To Know
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they had access to were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL, for 프라그마틱 사이트 체험 (Justpin.Date) example, cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 정품확인방법 (writeablog.net) in their decision to stay clear of 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 the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 but also a few disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
Recent research used the DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of 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 DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and 프라그마틱 무료체험 refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to 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' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on 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 CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms 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 concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This 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 the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they had access to were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL, for 프라그마틱 사이트 체험 (Justpin.Date) example, cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 정품확인방법 (writeablog.net) in their decision to stay clear of 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 the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 but also a few disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
Recent research used the DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of 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 DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and 프라그마틱 무료체험 refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to 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' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on 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 CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms 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 concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This 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 the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
- 이전글10 Mistaken Answers To Common Daftar Situs Togel Questions: Do You Know The Right Answers? 24.11.08
- 다음글9 . What Your Parents Teach You About American Fridge Freezers Uk 24.11.08
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.