What Experts In The Field Want You To Know
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has a few drawbacks. For instance the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, 슬롯 metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. 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 responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 such as DCTs, MQs, 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 in either 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 situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational affordances. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of various sources of data including documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has a few drawbacks. For instance the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, 슬롯 metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. 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 responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 such as DCTs, MQs, 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 in either 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 situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational affordances. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of various sources of data including documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
- 이전글SR22 insurance Chicago 24.11.01
- 다음글Need Inspiration? Try Looking Up Pragmatic Recommendations 24.11.01
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.