Why Pragmatic Is The Right Choice For You?
페이지 정보
작성자 Layne 댓글 0건 조회 9회 작성일 24-11-02 07:12본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.
Recent research has used an DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The 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 responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach 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 frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "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 varied depending on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and 프라그마틱 추천 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법체험 (similar web site) L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors like relational advantages. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, 프라그마틱 pragmatic awareness, understanding and their understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 for example said she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.
Recent research has used an DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The 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 responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach 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 frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "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 varied depending on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and 프라그마틱 추천 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법체험 (similar web site) L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors like relational advantages. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, 프라그마틱 pragmatic awareness, understanding and their understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 for example said she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.