Why Pragmatic Is Right For You
페이지 정보
작성자 Lizzie Hulett 작성일24-11-07 14:47 조회20회 댓글0건관련링크
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 learner-internal elements, were important. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has a few disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for 프라그마틱 사이트 investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of 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 more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered 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 a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or 무료 프라그마틱 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 convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about 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 transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Interviews with Refusal
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted 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 L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on 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 even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and 무료 프라그마틱 ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and affordances. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
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 the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 learner-internal elements, were important. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has a few disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for 프라그마틱 사이트 investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of 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 more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered 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 a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or 무료 프라그마틱 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 convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about 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 transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Interviews with Refusal
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted 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 L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on 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 even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and 무료 프라그마틱 ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and affordances. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
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 the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.