Pragmatic Tools To Facilitate Your Daily Life
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be 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 ability can aid researchers understand 프라그마틱 무료체험 the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, 프라그마틱 게임 a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
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 were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted to answer this question using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in 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 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 native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational benefits. They also discussed, for 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of various sources of data including interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to 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 strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 이미지 (Mozillabd.Science) pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be 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 ability can aid researchers understand 프라그마틱 무료체험 the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, 프라그마틱 게임 a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
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 were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted to answer this question using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in 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 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 native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational benefits. They also discussed, for 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of various sources of data including interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to 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 strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 이미지 (Mozillabd.Science) pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
- 이전글Online Poker Jobs - The Basics Of Texas Holdem Poker 24.10.19
- 다음글See What Espresso Makers Tricks The Celebs Are Making Use Of 24.10.19
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.