가맹점회원 | 10 Healthy Habits For A Healthy Pragmatic
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 tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learner-internal elements, were important. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their local professor 프라그마틱 데모 relationship as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be 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 the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in different 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 examine various aspects such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study used the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess refusal ability.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for 무료 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 (Goto-Directory.Com) reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs 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 their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 and 프라그마틱 정품인증 classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, 프라그마틱 환수율 TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learner-internal elements, were important. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their local professor 프라그마틱 데모 relationship as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be 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 the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in different 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 examine various aspects such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study used the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess refusal ability.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for 무료 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 (Goto-Directory.Com) reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs 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 their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 and 프라그마틱 정품인증 classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, 프라그마틱 환수율 TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.