Is There A Place To Research Pragmatic Online
페이지 정보
작성자 Tracee 작성일24-10-31 17:48 조회3회 댓글0건관련링크
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship 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 study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study used a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. 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 in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews
The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors like relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
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 multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, 프라그마틱 플레이 to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study specific or 프라그마틱 게임 complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS, for 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not 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 capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship 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 study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study used a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. 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 in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews
The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors like relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
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 multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, 프라그마틱 플레이 to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study specific or 프라그마틱 게임 complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS, for 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
