How To Research Pragmatic Online
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has some drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
Recent research used the DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for 프라그마틱 홈페이지 data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, 프라그마틱 불법 such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' 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 at the upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and 프라그마틱 추천 refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 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 participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Interviews with Refusal
The key issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and 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 CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They described, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data like documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique 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 purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which could be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has some drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
Recent research used the DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for 프라그마틱 홈페이지 data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, 프라그마틱 불법 such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' 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 at the upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and 프라그마틱 추천 refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 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 participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Interviews with Refusal
The key issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and 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 CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They described, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data like documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique 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 purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which could be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
- 이전글Why is It Seeping Back In? 25.01.27
- 다음글Blackjack Just For Fun And Profit Online 25.01.27
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.