본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and 프라그마틱 무료게임 ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects that include the manner of speaking, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 정품 사이트 (1profshop.ru) turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
Recent research used the DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, 프라그마틱 사이트 including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and 프라그마틱 사이트 their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their identities, 프라그마틱 추천 their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' practical 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 showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely 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 to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced 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 testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses numerous sources of information including interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second 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 understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For simply click the up coming website page example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
CLKs' understanding and 프라그마틱 무료게임 ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects that include the manner of speaking, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 정품 사이트 (1profshop.ru) turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
Recent research used the DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, 프라그마틱 사이트 including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and 프라그마틱 사이트 their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their identities, 프라그마틱 추천 their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' practical 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 showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely 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 to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced 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 testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses numerous sources of information including interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second 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 understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For simply click the up coming website page example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
대표이사 김무현