Why Pragmatic Is Your Next Big Obsession?
페이지 정보
작성자 Sunny 댓글 0건 조회 2회 작성일 24-11-23 03:06본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, 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 it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners speaking.
A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always accurate, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 슬롯 팁 - Jonpin.Com, and 무료 프라그마틱 they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
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, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as 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 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 on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources including interviews, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, 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 it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners speaking.
A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always accurate, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 슬롯 팁 - Jonpin.Com, and 무료 프라그마틱 they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
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, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as 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 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 on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources including interviews, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
