What Is The Reason Adding A Key Word To Your Life's Journey Will Make …
Dane
2024.09.26 17:46
6
0
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they had access to were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For instance, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 (visit www.followmedoitbbs.com now >>>) in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 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 their L2. Then they were invited to 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 patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 데모 - click here. - multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational advantages. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop 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 investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources like documents, interviews, and observations, to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they had access to were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For instance, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 (visit www.followmedoitbbs.com now >>>) in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 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 their L2. Then they were invited to 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 patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 데모 - click here. - multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational advantages. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop 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 investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources like documents, interviews, and observations, to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록 0
댓글 포인트 안내