Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they had access to were important. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or 프라그마틱 체험 evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine various aspects such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 (http://freeok.cn) 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research attempted to answer this question with various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 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 프라그마틱 무료게임 L2 levels. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was built on 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 study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they had access to were important. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or 프라그마틱 체험 evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine various aspects such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 (http://freeok.cn) 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research attempted to answer this question with various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 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 프라그마틱 무료게임 L2 levels. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was built on 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 study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
댓글 달기