What Is Pragmatic And How To Use What Is Pragmatic And How To Use
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine various aspects such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
A recent study used the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, 프라그마틱 순위 such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments 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 that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The 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 transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the norm for 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 allow them to better understand 프라그마틱 순위 the effect of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor 프라그마틱 정품확인 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁무료 [Git2.nas.zggsong.cn] for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources including documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine various aspects such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
A recent study used the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, 프라그마틱 순위 such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments 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 that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The 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 transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the norm for 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 allow them to better understand 프라그마틱 순위 the effect of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor 프라그마틱 정품확인 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁무료 [Git2.nas.zggsong.cn] for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources including documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.
- 이전글RocketSMTP.io 24.11.29
- 다음글임플란트 가격, 이 진실을 알면 놀랄 것이다! 24.11.29
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.