The Most Popular Pragmatic Gurus Are Doing 3 Things
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and 프라그마틱 순위 ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has a few disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue 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 investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 정품인증 (connect.boka.Se) intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. This method utilizes numerous sources of information including interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and 프라그마틱 순위 ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has a few disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue 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 investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 정품인증 (connect.boka.Se) intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. This method utilizes numerous sources of information including interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.
- 이전글Step-By-Move Guidelines To Help You Accomplish Website Marketing Good results 24.12.27
- 다음글Glyco Forte: Preparing for a Healthier Tomorrow 24.12.27
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.