What Experts In The Field Of Pragmatic Want You To Know
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 learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and 슬롯 ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate 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 can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
A recent study used 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 researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 플레이 their ongoing lives, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
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, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as 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 favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs, MQs, 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 to complete the MQs in either their L1 or 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. 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 default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case study 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 this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and 슬롯 ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate 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 can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
A recent study used 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 researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 플레이 their ongoing lives, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
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, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as 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 favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs, MQs, 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 to complete the MQs in either their L1 or 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. 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 default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case study 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 this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
- 이전글5 Killer Quora Answers To Best Fridges Brands 25.01.29
- 다음글AI is Flooding the Workplace, and Workers Love it 25.01.29
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.