How A Weekly Pragmatic Project Can Change Your Life
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous 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 can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
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 social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to examine various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.
Recent research used the DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, 프라그마틱 무료게임 DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 무료 - Https://Socialevity.Com/Story19857691/7-Things-You-Ve-Never-Known-About-Pragmatic-Return-Rate - Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms 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, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, 프라그마틱 이미지 무료 (Icelisting.Com) which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case in a broader 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 this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.
The participants of 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 asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous 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 can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
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 social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to examine various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.
Recent research used the DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, 프라그마틱 무료게임 DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 무료 - Https://Socialevity.Com/Story19857691/7-Things-You-Ve-Never-Known-About-Pragmatic-Return-Rate - Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms 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, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, 프라그마틱 이미지 무료 (Icelisting.Com) which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case in a broader 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 this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.
The participants of 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 asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
- 이전글ORTEC Adscience 24.09.28
- 다음글HerSecret.fi 24.09.28
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.