What Experts Say You Should Know?
페이지 정보
작성자 Clinton Mcneil 댓글 0건 조회 3회 작성일 24-10-26 02:01본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, 프라그마틱 무료게임 but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making 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 at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 정품 사이트 (https://zenwriting.net/) DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect 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 despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors like relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns 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 still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of 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 an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure 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 help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and 프라그마틱 무료체험 LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, 프라그마틱 무료게임 but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making 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 at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 정품 사이트 (https://zenwriting.net/) DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect 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 despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors like relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns 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 still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of 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 an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure 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 help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and 프라그마틱 무료체험 LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.