This Is The History Of Pragmatic In 10 Milestones
페이지 정보
작성자 Major 댓글 0건 조회 9회 작성일 24-10-26 21:37본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they were able to draw from were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
Recent research used a DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 공식홈페이지 (https://images.google.cg/url?q=https://click4r.com/Posts/g/17903244/what-experts-say-you-should-be-able-to) they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, 프라그마틱 정품확인 and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
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 could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean 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. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, 프라그마틱 슬롯 like relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's 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 technique that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on 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 questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they were able to draw from were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
Recent research used a DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 공식홈페이지 (https://images.google.cg/url?q=https://click4r.com/Posts/g/17903244/what-experts-say-you-should-be-able-to) they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, 프라그마틱 정품확인 and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
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 could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean 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. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, 프라그마틱 슬롯 like relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's 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 technique that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on 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 questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.