The Reasons Pragmatic Is Tougher Than You Think
페이지 정보
작성자 Hazel 댓글 0건 조회 6회 작성일 24-12-24 21:36본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has its drawbacks. For 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
Recent research utilized a DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, 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 to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or 프라그마틱 슬롯 not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "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 showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating 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 while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of 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 iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, 프라그마틱 슬롯 did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors such as relational affordances. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has its drawbacks. For 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
Recent research utilized a DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, 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 to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or 프라그마틱 슬롯 not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "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 showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating 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 while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of 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 iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, 프라그마틱 슬롯 did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors such as relational affordances. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.