A How-To Guide For Pragmatic From Beginning To End
페이지 정보
작성자 Jaime 댓글 0건 조회 7회 작성일 24-12-27 16:33본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
Recent research utilized the DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 무료게임 their current life histories as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and 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 were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or 프라그마틱 무료스핀 L2. Then 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 resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 test 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 investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth 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 or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based upon 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 study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding perception of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
Recent research utilized the DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 무료게임 their current life histories as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and 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 were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or 프라그마틱 무료스핀 L2. Then 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 resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 test 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 investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth 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 or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based upon 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 study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding perception of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.