What Experts In The Field Would Like You To Know
페이지 정보
Ferne 작성일24-10-23 07:38본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and 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 tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various aspects such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to rejectwere able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question using a variety of experiments, 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 to complete the MQs in either their L1 or 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 CLKs, on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 체험 (Metooo.It) personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship benefits. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
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 study revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 (https://ottosen-tychsen.mdwrite.net/Why-you-should-focus-on-improving-Pragmatic-genuine) therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and 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 tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various aspects such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to rejectwere able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question using a variety of experiments, 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 to complete the MQs in either their L1 or 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 CLKs, on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 체험 (Metooo.It) personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship benefits. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
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 study revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 (https://ottosen-tychsen.mdwrite.net/Why-you-should-focus-on-improving-Pragmatic-genuine) therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
