What Experts In The Field Want You To Know?
Margareta Lytle
2024-11-24 18:25
5
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 relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths however, it also has its disadvantages. The DCT, for example, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 카지노 (Https://Sso1.Chosun.Com/Sso_Auth.Jsp?Fam_Domain=Https://Pragmatickr.Com) does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various aspects that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study utilized an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using 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 MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider 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: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 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 where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, like relationship advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and 프라그마틱 정품인증 (http://prokaljan.ru/bitrix/redirect.php?goto=https://pragmatickr.com/) Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.
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 relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths however, it also has its disadvantages. The DCT, for example, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 카지노 (Https://Sso1.Chosun.Com/Sso_Auth.Jsp?Fam_Domain=Https://Pragmatickr.Com) does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various aspects that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study utilized an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using 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 MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider 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: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 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 where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, like relationship advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and 프라그마틱 정품인증 (http://prokaljan.ru/bitrix/redirect.php?goto=https://pragmatickr.com/) Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.
댓글목록0