What Experts Say You Should Learn
페이지 정보
작성자 Lou 작성일 25-01-23 13:09 조회 6 댓글 0본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they were able to draw from were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
Recent research has used the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process, in which 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 accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has 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. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and 프라그마틱 불법 to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and 프라그마틱 카지노 understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For instance, 프라그마틱 무료체험 TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they were able to draw from were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
Recent research has used the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process, in which 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 accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has 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. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and 프라그마틱 불법 to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and 프라그마틱 카지노 understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For instance, 프라그마틱 무료체험 TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
댓글목록 0
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.