가맹점회원 | What Is The Reason 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
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has its drawbacks. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally, 프라그마틱 슬롯 the DCT can be biased and may lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
Recent research utilized the DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include 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 based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, 프라그마틱 사이트 and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical 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's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed 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 12 the CLKs favored 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 that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in 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 who then coded them. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Interviews for refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question with various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 데모 (Douerdun.Com) and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not 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 reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. 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 uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in 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 in their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has its drawbacks. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally, 프라그마틱 슬롯 the DCT can be biased and may lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
Recent research utilized the DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include 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 based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, 프라그마틱 사이트 and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical 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's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed 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 12 the CLKs favored 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 that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in 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 who then coded them. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Interviews for refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question with various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 데모 (Douerdun.Com) and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not 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 reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. 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 uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in 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 in their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.