mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
 
(11 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean<br><br>In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were significant. The RIs from TS &amp; ZL, for example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for [https://pageoftoday.com/story3423262/11-faux-pas-that-are-actually-acceptable-to-make-with-your-pragmatic-free 프라그마틱 무료게임] their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).<br><br>This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:<br><br>Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)<br><br>The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and [https://pragmatickr-com97541.rimmablog.com/ 프라그마틱 슬롯] lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.<br><br>Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.<br><br>In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners in their speech.<br><br>Recent research used the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.<br><br>DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.<br><br>In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.<br><br>Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)<br><br>This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.<br><br>The MQ data were examined to identify 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 choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.<br><br>The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, [https://pr1bookmarks.com/story18088028/it-s-time-to-forget-pragmatic-game-10-reasons-why-you-no-longer-need-it 프라그마틱 정품 사이트] while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.<br><br>The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.<br><br>Refusal Interviews<br><br>The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.<br><br>The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.<br><br>The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).<br><br>These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and [https://leftbookmarks.com/story18172297/a-how-to-guide-for-pragmatic-slot-buff-from-beginning-to-end 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지] 홈페이지, [https://bookmarksparkle.com/story18227582/an-easy-to-follow-guide-to-pragmatic-play Bookmarksparkle.Com], classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.<br><br>Case Studies<br><br>The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data, such as interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.<br><br>In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.<br><br>This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and  [https://telebookmarks.com/story8347837/the-often-unknown-benefits-of-pragmatic 라이브 카지노] LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.<br><br>Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and knowledge of the world.<br><br>The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean<br><br>In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they could draw on were significant. Researchers from TS and [https://bookmarkloves.com/story20068314/8-tips-to-improve-your-pragmatic-free-slots-game 프라그마틱 무료스핀] ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).<br><br>This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:<br><br>Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)<br><br>The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.<br><br>Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.<br><br>In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.<br><br>A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.<br><br>DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for  [https://ilovebookmarking.com/story18107884/why-you-should-concentrate-on-enhancing-slot 프라그마틱 슬롯무료] linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.<br><br>In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.<br><br>Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)<br><br>This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.<br><br>The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.<br><br>The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For [https://bookmarklinkz.com/story18039248/a-sage-piece-of-advice-on-pragmatic-from-an-older-five-year-old 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트] example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.<br><br>The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each 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 who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.<br><br>Refusal Interviews (RIs)<br><br>The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs,  [https://bookmarkusers.com/story17943687/pragmatic-game-explained-in-fewer-than-140-characters 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험] and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 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.<br><br>The results showed that CLKs on average, [https://bookmarklayer.com/story18100710/how-pragmatic-free-trial-its-rise-to-the-no-1-trend-on-social-media 프라그마틱 불법] did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.<br><br>The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).<br><br>These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.<br><br>Case Studies<br><br>The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.<br><br>The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.<br><br>This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.<br><br>Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for [https://artybookmarks.com/story17994505/5-killer-quora-answers-to-pragmatic 무료 프라그마틱] their next test. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.<br><br>The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.

Latest revision as of 16:46, 25 December 2024

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they could draw on were significant. Researchers from TS and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each 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 who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 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, 프라그마틱 불법 did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding 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 Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for 무료 프라그마틱 their next test. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.