This Is The History Of Pragmatic In 10 Milestones
페이지 정보
작성자 Roma 작성일 25-01-24 07:36 조회 2 댓글 0본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were significant. The RIs from TS and 프라그마틱 ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and may cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.
Recent research used a DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and 프라그마틱 순위 teaching.
First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored 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 basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their 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, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. For 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for 프라그마틱 무료 official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the behavior 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
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) at their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were significant. The RIs from TS and 프라그마틱 ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and may cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.
Recent research used a DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and 프라그마틱 순위 teaching.
First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored 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 basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their 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, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. For 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for 프라그마틱 무료 official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the behavior 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
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) at their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.
댓글목록 0
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.