가맹점회원 | 10 Pragmatic That Are Unexpected
아이디
패스워드
회사명
담당자번호
업태
종류
주소
전화번호
휴대폰
FAX
홈페이지 주소
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and 프라그마틱 정품 cultural differences. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and may result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners speaking.
Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate 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 must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily correct, and 프라그마틱 불법 they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring 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 requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, 프라그마틱 정품확인 DCTs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence 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 basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted to answer this question using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred external factors, like relationship affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, 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 tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and 프라그마틱 정품 cultural differences. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and may result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners speaking.
Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate 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 must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily correct, and 프라그마틱 불법 they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring 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 requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, 프라그마틱 정품확인 DCTs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence 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 basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted to answer this question using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred external factors, like relationship affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, 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 tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.