Your Family Will Thank You For Having This Pragmatic
페이지 정보
작성자 Mitchell 댓글 0건 조회 5회 작성일 24-10-24 10:45본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.
Recent research used the DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, 프라그마틱 카지노 무료 슬롯; Https://Nowbookmarks.Com, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or 슬롯 not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined 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 an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based 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 also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews
The most important question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using various experiments, including DCTs MQs 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 either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators improve their methods of 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 technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.
Recent research used the DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, 프라그마틱 카지노 무료 슬롯; Https://Nowbookmarks.Com, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or 슬롯 not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined 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 an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based 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 also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews
The most important question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using various experiments, including DCTs MQs 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 either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators improve their methods of 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 technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.