Your Family Will Be Grateful For Getting This Pragmatic
페이지 정보
작성자 Garland 작성일24-09-21 14:28 조회2회 댓글0건관련링크
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. RIs from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has some drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners speaking.
Recent research used a DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and 프라그마틱 체험 linguistic rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 정품인증 (just click the up coming website) penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. RIs from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has some drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners speaking.
Recent research used a DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and 프라그마틱 체험 linguistic rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 정품인증 (just click the up coming website) penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
