가맹점회원 | Why Pragmatic Is The Best Choice For You?
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' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they had access to were important. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for 무료 프라그마틱 their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for 프라그마틱 정품확인 정품 확인법 (https://pragmatic-kr90977.blog2freedom.com/) 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. For instance the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or 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 manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.
A recent study used the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required 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 discovered to 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 an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 데모 (Https://Dailybookmarkhit.Com) 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of various sources of data, such as documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better 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] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they had access to were important. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for 무료 프라그마틱 their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for 프라그마틱 정품확인 정품 확인법 (https://pragmatic-kr90977.blog2freedom.com/) 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. For instance the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or 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 manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.
A recent study used the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required 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 discovered to 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 an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 데모 (Https://Dailybookmarkhit.Com) 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of various sources of data, such as documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better 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] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.