What Experts Say You Should Know
페이지 정보
작성자 Evie 댓글 0건 조회 4회 작성일 24-11-11 18:19본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they had access to were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
Recent research utilized a DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 무료체험 메타 (https://maps.google.cv/url?q=https://telegra.ph/how-do-you-explain-pragmatic-free-trial-slot-buff-to-a-five-year-old-09-12) then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 video recordings. Researchers cautioned, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily precise, and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined 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 with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, like relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. 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. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining 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 purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached 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 for their next test. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they had access to were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
Recent research utilized a DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 무료체험 메타 (https://maps.google.cv/url?q=https://telegra.ph/how-do-you-explain-pragmatic-free-trial-slot-buff-to-a-five-year-old-09-12) then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 video recordings. Researchers cautioned, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily precise, and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined 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 with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, like relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. 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. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining 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 purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached 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 for their next test. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.