지역센타회원 | What Experts In The Field Want You To Know?
아이디
패스워드
회사명
담당자번호
업태
종류
주소
전화번호
휴대폰
FAX
홈페이지 주소
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL, for 프라그마틱 무료스핀 example mentioned their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important 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 numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 무료스핀 (https://maroonbookmarks.com/story17971328/three-reasons-to-identify-why-your-how-to-check-The-authenticity-of-pragmatic-isn-t-working-and-the-best-ways-to-fix-it) experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often 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 led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, 프라그마틱 무료체험 while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, 프라그마틱 이미지 were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first 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 discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of 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 investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL, for 프라그마틱 무료스핀 example mentioned their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important 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 numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 무료스핀 (https://maroonbookmarks.com/story17971328/three-reasons-to-identify-why-your-how-to-check-The-authenticity-of-pragmatic-isn-t-working-and-the-best-ways-to-fix-it) experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often 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 led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, 프라그마틱 무료체험 while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, 프라그마틱 이미지 were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first 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 discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of 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 investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.