시력교정 The Best Pragmatic The Gurus Have Been Doing 3 Things
페이지 정보
작성자 J**** 조회조회 114회 작성일 25-01-03 08:49본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has some drawbacks. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. 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, DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
Recent research has used an DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews for refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and 프라그마틱 카지노 라이브 카지노 (Bookmarkbells.Com) MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 - https://pragmatic08742.bloggazza.Com - intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses numerous sources of information including interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level 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 to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has some drawbacks. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. 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, DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
Recent research has used an DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews for refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and 프라그마틱 카지노 라이브 카지노 (Bookmarkbells.Com) MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 - https://pragmatic08742.bloggazza.Com - intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses numerous sources of information including interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level 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 to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.