What Experts Say You Should Know
페이지 정보
작성자 Bev Bormann 댓글 0건 조회 5회 작성일 24-11-02 03:34본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they were able to draw from were important. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot account for 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 cultural and personal variations in communication. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used 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. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
A recent study used a DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
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 test developers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, 프라그마틱 이미지 were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, 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 their L2. Then, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider 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 were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship affordances. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical 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 reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students 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 risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they were able to draw from were important. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot account for 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 cultural and personal variations in communication. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used 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. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
A recent study used a DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
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 test developers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, 프라그마틱 이미지 were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, 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 their L2. Then, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider 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 were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship affordances. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical 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 reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students 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 risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.