10 Unexpected Pragmatic Tips
페이지 정보
작성자 Mervin 댓글 0건 조회 3회 작성일 24-12-23 05:08본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has its drawbacks. For example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues, including politeness, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 정품확인방법 (click homepage) turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
Recent research utilized a DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that, on average, 프라그마틱 the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors such as relational affordances. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, 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 the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be 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 in a broader theoretical context.
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 the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has its drawbacks. For example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues, including politeness, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 정품확인방법 (click homepage) turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
Recent research utilized a DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that, on average, 프라그마틱 the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors such as relational affordances. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, 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 the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be 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 in a broader theoretical context.
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 the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.