Pragmatic Tips From The Top In The Industry
페이지 정보
작성자 Sadie 댓글 0건 조회 7회 작성일 24-12-23 04:53본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and may cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 체험, https://formula-holoda.ru/bitrix/redirect.php?event1=click_to_call&event2=&event3=&goto=https://pragmatickr.com, 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that, 프라그마틱 무료게임 on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship affordances. They also discussed, for instance, 프라그마틱 무료체험 how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators develop 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 a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was built on 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 test revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
The participants of this study were all 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 achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and may cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 체험, https://formula-holoda.ru/bitrix/redirect.php?event1=click_to_call&event2=&event3=&goto=https://pragmatickr.com, 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that, 프라그마틱 무료게임 on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship affordances. They also discussed, for instance, 프라그마틱 무료체험 how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators develop 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 a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was built on 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 test revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
The participants of this study were all 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 achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and would not 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.