5 Pragmatic Projects That Work For Any Budget
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they had access to were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. 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 connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners speaking.
Recent research utilized an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 슬롯체험 - Www.Longisland.Com - is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. This method utilizes numerous sources of information like interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, 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 select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 정품인증 - check out your url, pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they had access to were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. 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 connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners speaking.
Recent research utilized an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 슬롯체험 - Www.Longisland.Com - is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. This method utilizes numerous sources of information like interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, 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 select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 정품인증 - check out your url, pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
- 이전글Why We Do We Love Hinges (And You Should Too!) 25.01.28
- 다음글See What Buy Driving Licence UK Tricks The Celebs Are Making Use Of 25.01.28
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.