Created page with "Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean<br><br>In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were important. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).<br><br>This article reviews all local pragmatic researc..."
 
mNo edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean<br><br>In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were important. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).<br><br>This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:<br><br>Discourse Construction Tests<br><br>The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.<br><br>Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.<br><br>In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.<br><br>Recent research used the DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.<br><br>DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.<br><br>In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.<br><br>Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)<br><br>This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools 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 provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.<br><br>First, the MQ data were examined 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 the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.<br><br>The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.<br><br>The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental 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 using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.<br><br>The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. They described, [https://www.veca2.com/@pragmaticplay0765 프라그마틱 슬롯] for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.<br><br>However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).<br><br>These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 [[http://www.vokipedia.de/index.php?title=Pragmatic_Game_Explained_In_Fewer_Than_140_Characters www.Vokipedia.de]] the impact of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and [https://zoucast.com/pragmaticplay6167 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프] testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.<br><br>Case Studies<br><br>The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources like interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.<br><br>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 topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.<br><br>This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.<br><br>Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.<br><br>Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For  [https://git.ashcloudsolution.com/pragmaticplay4697 프라그마틱 정품인증] example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean<br><br>CLKs' awareness and [https://images.google.is/url?q=http://fifaua.org/user/milkliver7/ 프라그마틱 체험] [https://images.google.com.hk/url?q=https://www.diggerslist.com/66eba03675d58/about 슬롯] 체험 ([https://www.google.at/url?q=https://glamorouslengths.com/author/domainonion4 Www.Google.At]) ability to draw on relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).<br><br>This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:<br><br>Discourse Construction Tests<br><br>The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.<br><br>Despite its limitations, the DCT is 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 influence social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.<br><br>In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners speaking.<br><br>Recent research used a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.<br><br>DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing refusal competence.<br><br>A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.<br><br>Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)<br><br>This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.<br><br>The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.<br><br>The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and [http://douerdun.com/home.php?mod=space&uid=1177828 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료] [http://jonpin.com/home.php?mod=space&uid=471909 프라그마틱 무료]체험 슬롯버프 ([https://maps.google.gg/url?q=http://delphi.larsbo.org/user/yakpantry1 Maps.google.gg]) 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.<br><br>The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.<br><br>Refusal Interviews (RIs)<br><br>The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.<br><br>The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors like relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.<br><br>However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).<br><br>These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. Furthermore, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.<br><br>Case Studies<br><br>The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.<br><br>In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a wider theoretical context.<br><br>This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.<br><br>The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.<br><br>The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.

Latest revision as of 16:13, 21 December 2024

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and 프라그마틱 체험 슬롯 체험 (Www.Google.At) ability to draw on relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is 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 influence social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners speaking.

Recent research used a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 (Maps.google.gg) 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors like relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. Furthermore, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.