What Experts From The Field Of Pragmatic Want You To Know
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from 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 example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages however, it also has its disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to analyze various issues, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 추천 (Https://Www.Xiuwushidai.Com) including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
Recent research has used the DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 슬롯 무료 (Highly recommended Online site) their ongoing lives and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular 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 terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of 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 transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted to answer this question using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained 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 questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS for instance said 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' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from 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 example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages however, it also has its disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to analyze various issues, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 추천 (Https://Www.Xiuwushidai.Com) including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
Recent research has used the DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 슬롯 무료 (Highly recommended Online site) their ongoing lives and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular 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 terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of 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 transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted to answer this question using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained 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 questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS for instance said 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.
- 이전글More on High Stack Poker 24.09.26
- 다음글Online Baseball Betting 24.09.26
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.