What Is The Reason Pragmatic Is Right For You?
페이지 정보
작성자 Bryant 댓글 0건 조회 6회 작성일 24-12-28 00:08본문
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. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize a strict professor (see the second example).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or assessment.
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 to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
A recent study utilized the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors like relational affordances. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based 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 an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 프라그마틱 정품 사이트확인방법 (Read Significantly more) such as documents, interviews, and 프라그마틱 무료게임; Bookmarking link for more info, observations, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' understanding 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 major factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize a strict professor (see the second example).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or assessment.
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 to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
A recent study utilized the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors like relational affordances. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based 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 an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 프라그마틱 정품 사이트확인방법 (Read Significantly more) such as documents, interviews, and 프라그마틱 무료게임; Bookmarking link for more info, observations, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.