지역센타회원 | What Pragmatic Could Be Your Next Big Obsession?
아이디
패스워드
회사명
담당자번호
업태
종류
주소
전화번호
휴대폰
FAX
홈페이지 주소
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major reason for them to choose to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has some drawbacks. For example, the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research has used a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The most important issue in research on pragmatics 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, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs 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 asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though 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 multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors such as relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources including interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 (webookmarks.com) and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that 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 the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for 프라그마틱 플레이 추천 (https://mediasocially.com/Story3338405/the-reasons-why-pragmatic-demo-is-the-main-focus-of-everyone-s-attention-in-2024) instance said she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major reason for them to choose to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has some drawbacks. For example, the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research has used a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The most important issue in research on pragmatics 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, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs 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 asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though 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 multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors such as relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources including interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 (webookmarks.com) and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that 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 the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for 프라그마틱 플레이 추천 (https://mediasocially.com/Story3338405/the-reasons-why-pragmatic-demo-is-the-main-focus-of-everyone-s-attention-in-2024) instance said she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.