What Experts From The Field Want You To Learn
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they had access to were significant. RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners' speech.
Recent research utilized an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or 프라그마틱 무료스핀 not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior 프라그마틱 플레이 in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% 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 actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. Additionally, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
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 this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they had access to were significant. RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners' speech.
Recent research utilized an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or 프라그마틱 무료스핀 not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior 프라그마틱 플레이 in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% 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 actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. Additionally, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
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 this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.
- 이전글What's The Current Job Market For How Much Fabric For 2 Seater Sofa Professionals? 24.11.12
- 다음글You'll Never Guess This Private Psychiatrist Sheffield Cost's Benefits 24.11.12
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.