가맹점회원 | The Reason Pragmatic Is So Beneficial During COVID-19
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 factors CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they were able to draw from were important. RIs from TS and ZL, for example, cited their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has its drawbacks. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and may cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for 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 use two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 of communication learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research utilized an DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 무료 Z-tests. The CLKs were found 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 a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, 프라그마틱 체험 in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders listened and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 discussed each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to think about 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% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. 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 preferred norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they were able to draw from were important. RIs from TS and ZL, for example, cited their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has its drawbacks. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and may cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for 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 use two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 of communication learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research utilized an DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 무료 Z-tests. The CLKs were found 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 a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, 프라그마틱 체험 in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders listened and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 discussed each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to think about 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% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. 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 preferred norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.