Why Is This Pragmatic So Beneficial? During COVID-19
페이지 정보
작성자 Kassie 작성일24-09-20 23:38 조회5회 댓글0건관련링크
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they could draw on were crucial. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT, 프라그마틱 무료체험 for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and could cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
A recent study used an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 슬롯 환수율 (https://Privatebookmark.com/story18135690/15-reasons-you-shouldn-t-be-ignoring-pragmatic-slots) more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 슬롯 the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be 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' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 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 also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought 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. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors like relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 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 a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a general 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, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study 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, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they could draw on were crucial. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT, 프라그마틱 무료체험 for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and could cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
A recent study used an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 슬롯 환수율 (https://Privatebookmark.com/story18135690/15-reasons-you-shouldn-t-be-ignoring-pragmatic-slots) more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 슬롯 the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be 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' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 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 also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought 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. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors like relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 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 a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a general 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, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study 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, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
