상담신청 | Ashli님의 문의
페이지 정보
작성자 Ashli 작성일24-09-30 02:44 조회4회 댓글0건관련링크
본문
이름 : Ashli
이메일 : ashlitice@yahoo.com 연락처 : 예식일 : How Pragmatic Propelled To The Top Trend On Social Media 문의내용: Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 - Dokuwiki.Stream - to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research has used the DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and 프라그마틱 정품인증 슬롯 팁 (Www.Northwestu.Edu) traditionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors like relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 슬롯 체험 (just click the up coming page) a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data including interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in 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, understanding understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.
이메일 : ashlitice@yahoo.com 연락처 : 예식일 : How Pragmatic Propelled To The Top Trend On Social Media 문의내용: Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 - Dokuwiki.Stream - to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research has used the DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and 프라그마틱 정품인증 슬롯 팁 (Www.Northwestu.Edu) traditionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors like relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 슬롯 체험 (just click the up coming page) a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data including interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in 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, understanding understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
