What Do You Do To Know If You're Set To Go After Pragmatic
페이지 정보
작성자 Rochelle 작성일 25-02-01 04:30 조회 2 댓글 0본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and 프라그마틱 무료 순위 (Http://Www.1v34.com) were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic 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 of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, 프라그마틱 순위 and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 discussing each transcript. The results of coding are 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 decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
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 this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors such as relational benefits. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information including interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and 프라그마틱 무료 순위 (Http://Www.1v34.com) were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic 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 of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, 프라그마틱 순위 and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 discussing each transcript. The results of coding are 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 decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
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 this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors such as relational benefits. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information including interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.
댓글목록 0
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.