Why Is It So Useful? During COVID-19
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
A recent study employed an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and 프라그마틱 추천 utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 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 revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 transcribed by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 무료 슬롯버프 - https://git.tikat.fun/, 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. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and 프라그마틱 추천 discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational benefits. For instance, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 데모, Https://www.tsrn.co.uk, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
A recent study employed an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and 프라그마틱 추천 utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 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 revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 transcribed by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 무료 슬롯버프 - https://git.tikat.fun/, 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. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and 프라그마틱 추천 discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational benefits. For instance, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 데모, Https://www.tsrn.co.uk, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
- 이전글The Most Worst Nightmare Concerning Wood Burner Fireplace Get Real 25.02.09
- 다음글에로박스사이트 주소ヴ 연결 (HD_780)에로박스사이트 주소ヴ #16k 에로박스사이트 주소ヴ 무료 25.02.09
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.