What Is Pragmatic And Why Is Everyone Talking About It?
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. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to not criticize a strict professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 more stages to alter social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various aspects such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research has used a DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for 프라그마틱 체험 more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed 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 coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data including documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to not criticize a strict professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 more stages to alter social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various aspects such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research has used a DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for 프라그마틱 체험 more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed 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 coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data including documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
- 이전글Maquillage Permanent Près de Chez Moi à Québec : Révélez Votre Beauté Naturelle 24.10.31
- 다음글What Is Pragmatic Return Rate? And How To Make Use Of It 24.10.31
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.