What Is Pragmatic And Why Is Everyone Speakin' About It?
페이지 정보
작성자 Holley 댓글 0건 조회 8회 작성일 24-12-25 06:02본문
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. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, 프라그마틱 정품 and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
Recent research used a DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily correct, 프라그마틱 플레이 and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had 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 CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer 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. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and 프라그마틱 추천 RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, 슬롯 they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors 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 choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, 프라그마틱 정품 and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
Recent research used a DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily correct, 프라그마틱 플레이 and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had 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 CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer 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. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and 프라그마틱 추천 RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, 슬롯 they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors 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 choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.