페이지 정보
작성자 Sheila 댓글 0건 조회 3회 작성일 24-11-18 21:57본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they could draw on were important. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has its disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable 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 can be a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
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, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
Recent research has used the DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making 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 ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.
The results of the MQs, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 무료체험; https://imoodle.win/wiki/12_Companies_Are_Leading_The_Way_In_Pragmatic_Authenticity_Verification, DCTs and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relational benefits. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the effect 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 at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method uses multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and 프라그마틱 사이트 knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. 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 difficult to connect to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they could draw on were important. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has its disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable 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 can be a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
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, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
Recent research has used the DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making 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 ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.
The results of the MQs, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 무료체험; https://imoodle.win/wiki/12_Companies_Are_Leading_The_Way_In_Pragmatic_Authenticity_Verification, DCTs and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relational benefits. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the effect 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 at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method uses multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and 프라그마틱 사이트 knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. 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 difficult to connect to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.