> 고객센터 > Q&AWhat To Do To Determine If You're In The Right Position To Go Aft…
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but it also has its drawbacks. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or assessment.
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 could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, 슬롯 - linkagogo.Trade, their ongoing lives and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
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 phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, 프라그마틱 추천 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 슬롯 (images.google.com.gt) like relationship advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test 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 explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily 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 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but it also has its drawbacks. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or assessment.
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 could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, 슬롯 - linkagogo.Trade, their ongoing lives and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
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 phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, 프라그마틱 추천 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 슬롯 (images.google.com.gt) like relationship advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test 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 explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily 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 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
