What Experts From The Field Want You To Know?
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 무료체험 슬롯버프 (http://Bbs.Qupu123.com/space-uid-2837794.html) ability to draw on relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.
A recent study used a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They aren't always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relational 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 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 were a sign of pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question by using various experimental tools, 프라그마틱 무료 including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information like interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which could be left out. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text, 무료 프라그마틱 or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on 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 questions about their WTC/SPCC, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 무료체험 슬롯버프 (http://Bbs.Qupu123.com/space-uid-2837794.html) ability to draw on relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.
A recent study used a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They aren't always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relational 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 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 were a sign of pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question by using various experimental tools, 프라그마틱 무료 including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information like interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which could be left out. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text, 무료 프라그마틱 or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on 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 questions about their WTC/SPCC, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
- 이전글شركة عزل خزانات بالرياض 25.01.30
- 다음글Why Is New York City Accident Lawyer So Effective When COVID-19 Is In Session 25.01.30
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.