인사말
건강한 삶과 행복,환한 웃음으로 좋은벗이 되겠습니다
룸갤러리
Pragmatic Strategies From The Top In The Business
페이지 정보
작성자 Faye 작성일25-01-28 20:36 조회10회 댓글0건본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the social ties they could draw on were important. RIs from TS and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 체험 (Planforexams.Com) ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable 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 the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research used a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of 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 measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular 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 was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs 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 their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and 프라그마틱 which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform that is 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 extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or 프라그마틱 third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the social ties they could draw on were important. RIs from TS and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 체험 (Planforexams.Com) ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable 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 the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research used a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of 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 measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular 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 was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs 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 their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and 프라그마틱 which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform that is 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 extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or 프라그마틱 third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.