The Best Pragmatic Gurus Are Doing 3 Things
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they could draw on were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned 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 the second example).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal variations in communication. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.
A recent study employed an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a given situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question with a variety of experiments, including 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 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for 프라그마틱 게임 future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. 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. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and 프라그마틱 추천 공식홈페이지 - learn more about atomcraft.ru, 프라그마틱 이미지 place the case within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based 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 revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they could draw on were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned 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 the second example).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal variations in communication. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.
A recent study employed an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a given situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question with a variety of experiments, including 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 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for 프라그마틱 게임 future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. 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. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and 프라그마틱 추천 공식홈페이지 - learn more about atomcraft.ru, 프라그마틱 이미지 place the case within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based 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 revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
- 이전글Three Greatest Moments In Asbestos Cancer Lawyer Mesothelioma Settlement History 24.10.04
- 다음글Why We Are In Love With Pragmatic Free (And You Should, Too!) 24.10.04
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.