A How-To Guide For Pragmatic From Beginning To End
페이지 정보
작성자 Winfred 댓글 0건 조회 4회 작성일 24-12-25 11:38본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and may result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various issues, including manner of speaking, 프라그마틱 순위 turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.
Recent research used the DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess refusal ability.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 (Xyzbookmarks.com) conventionally-indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question with several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, like relational advantages. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, 프라그마틱 추천 a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to study the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, 프라그마틱 불법 understanding and knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and may result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various issues, including manner of speaking, 프라그마틱 순위 turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.
Recent research used the DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess refusal ability.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 (Xyzbookmarks.com) conventionally-indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question with several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, like relational advantages. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, 프라그마틱 추천 a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to study the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, 프라그마틱 불법 understanding and knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.