What Experts From The Field Want You To Learn
페이지 정보
작성자 Perry 작성일24-10-24 19:55 조회2회 댓글0건관련링크
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and 프라그마틱 정품 공식홈페이지, https://ask.mgbg7b3bdcu.net/user/chefidea35, the social ties they could draw on were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant reason for them to choose to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and may result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various aspects, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and 라이브 카지노 MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a given situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 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 showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, 프라그마틱 카지노 where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and 프라그마틱 슬롯 discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators create 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 investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and 프라그마틱 정품 공식홈페이지, https://ask.mgbg7b3bdcu.net/user/chefidea35, the social ties they could draw on were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant reason for them to choose to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and may result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various aspects, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and 라이브 카지노 MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a given situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 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 showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, 프라그마틱 카지노 where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and 프라그마틱 슬롯 discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators create 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 investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
