mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 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 their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they had access to were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see example 2).<br><br>This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:<br><br>Discourse Construction Tests<br><br>The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and can cause overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.<br><br>Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in various 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 various aspects such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners their speech.<br><br>Recent research utilized a DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.<br><br>DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always precise,  [https://app.betterimpact.com/PublicEnterprise/EnterpriseActivity?enterpriseGuid=fc164282-65e0-4f49-ac06-1102ec8dfa0d&activityGuid=a958e445-3d61-40ec-8d5b-d6063b861a44&searchUrl=https://pragmatickr.com/ 프라그마틱 슬롯] 정품인증 [[https://xn----btblblmgffflyp7mi.xn--p1ai/bitrix/redirect.php?goto=https://pragmatickr.com/ --Btblblmgffflyp7mi.рф]] and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.<br><br>In a recent 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 made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.<br><br>Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)<br><br>This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), 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 for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.<br><br>The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. 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 on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.<br><br>The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred 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 in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. 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 reflected the actual behavior.<br><br>Interviews with Refusal<br><br>The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.<br><br>The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relationship benefits. They described, for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.<br><br>However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and [http://xn--1-htbc1ajagy.xn--p1ai/bitrix/redirect.php?event1=click_to_call&event2=&event3=&goto=https://pragmatickr.com/ 프라그마틱 무료슬롯] ([http://chehler.ru/bitrix/redirect.php?goto=https://pragmatickr.com/ chehler.ru]) believe 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 practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.<br><br>Case Studies<br><br>The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.<br><br>The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for research and which could be left out. It is also useful to read the research to gain a broad 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 that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, 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 tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also 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 of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.<br><br>The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. 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 did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean<br><br>CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS &amp; ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).<br><br>This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:<br><br>Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)<br><br>The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has its disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.<br><br>Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.<br><br>In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.<br><br>Recent research has used an DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from,  [https://pr7bookmark.com/story18529822/who-s-the-top-expert-in-the-world-on-pragmatic-genuine 프라그마틱 정품확인방법] 공식홈페이지 ([https://pragmatickrcom87531.wikilima.com/885573/the_most_advanced_guide_to_free_slot_pragmatic you can try Wikilima]) and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.<br><br>DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal ability.<br><br>In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.<br><br>Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)<br><br>This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, [https://pragmatickr75319.wiki-racconti.com/7722184/the_10_most_scariest_things_about_how_to_check_the_authenticity_of_pragmatic 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료] their current lives, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.<br><br>The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. 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 examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.<br><br>The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs,  [https://bookmarkpagerank.com/ 프라그마틱 무료스핀] which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process,  [https://socialevity.com/story20050116/what-is-pragmatic-ranking-and-why-is-everyone-dissing-it 라이브 카지노] in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.<br><br>Refusal Interviews (RIs)<br><br>The central question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to reflect on 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 patterns that resembled native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and [https://easiestbookmarks.com/story18386518/check-out-what-pragmatic-free-trial-tricks-celebs-are-making-use-of 프라그마틱 순위] multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors such as relational advantages. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.<br><br>However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).<br><br>These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. Furthermore this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies 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 investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.<br><br>In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which could be left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case within a larger theoretical context.<br><br>This case study was built on 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 experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.<br><br>The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.<br><br>The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.

Latest revision as of 18:38, 22 December 2024

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has its disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research has used an DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 공식홈페이지 (you can try Wikilima) and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal ability.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 their current lives, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process, 라이브 카지노 in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to reflect on 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 patterns that resembled native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and 프라그마틱 순위 multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors such as relational advantages. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. Furthermore this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies 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 investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which could be left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was built on 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 experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.