20 Pragmatic Websites Taking The Internet By Storm
페이지 정보
작성자 Barrett 댓글 0건 조회 9회 작성일 24-10-31 22:05본문
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 relationship advantages they could draw on were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, 프라그마틱 the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
Recent research utilized a DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, 프라그마틱 환수율 however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. 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 requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프, bookmarkswing.com, refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question by using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method utilizes numerous sources of information including interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, 프라그마틱 the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
Recent research utilized a DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, 프라그마틱 환수율 however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. 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 requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프, bookmarkswing.com, refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question by using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method utilizes numerous sources of information including interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
