The Most Popular Pragmatic It's What Gurus Do Three Things
페이지 정보
작성자 Nam Secombe 댓글 0건 조회 8회 작성일 24-12-27 21:23본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and can cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect 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 among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.
A recent study used the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and 프라그마틱 무료체험 multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first 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 to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised 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 reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns 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 resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 beyond. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information like interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS, 프라그마틱 무료 for 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 example, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and can cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect 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 among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.
A recent study used the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and 프라그마틱 무료체험 multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first 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 to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised 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 reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns 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 resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 beyond. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information like interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS, 프라그마틱 무료 for 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 example, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.