상담완료 | Jerold님의 문의
페이지 정보
작성자 Jerold 작성일24-09-28 19:34 조회10회 댓글0건관련링크
본문
이름 : Jerold
이메일 : jeroldkenny@gmail.com 연락처 : 예식일 : 10 Things That Everyone Doesn't Get Right About Pragmatic 문의내용: Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For 프라그마틱 순위 프라그마틱 추천 (click the next internet page) instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to 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 requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected 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 words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using various 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 in either 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 answers. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors like relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and 프라그마틱 무료체험 believe that they are unintelligent. This is similar to the one 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 as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of 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 investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
이메일 : jeroldkenny@gmail.com 연락처 : 예식일 : 10 Things That Everyone Doesn't Get Right About Pragmatic 문의내용: Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For 프라그마틱 순위 프라그마틱 추천 (click the next internet page) instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to 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 requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected 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 words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using various 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 in either 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 answers. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors like relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and 프라그마틱 무료체험 believe that they are unintelligent. This is similar to the one 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 as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of 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 investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
