지역센타회원 | 5 Pragmatic Lessons From Professionals
아이디
패스워드
회사명
담당자번호
업태
종류
주소
전화번호
휴대폰
FAX
홈페이지 주소
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study utilized a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 (Hzpc6.Com) and their choices were influenced by four major factors: 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas 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-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 (Www.google.co.ao) on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study utilized a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 (Hzpc6.Com) and their choices were influenced by four major factors: 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas 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-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 (Www.google.co.ao) on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.