Pragmatic Strategies From The Top In The Industry
페이지 정보
작성자 Denese Poate 댓글 0건 조회 7회 작성일 24-12-23 01:41본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances and 프라그마틱 정품인증 learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
Recent research utilized an DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 - Mnogootvetov.Ru - form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, 프라그마틱 사이트 including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. 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. It was found that CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model 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 enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached 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, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances and 프라그마틱 정품인증 learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
Recent research utilized an DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 - Mnogootvetov.Ru - form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, 프라그마틱 사이트 including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. 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. It was found that CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model 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 enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached 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, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.