Where To Research Pragmatic Online
페이지 정보
작성자 Leslee 작성일24-09-21 16:10 조회2회 댓글0건관련링크
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be 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 social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine various issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.
A recent study employed a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 (this contact form) then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were 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 experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly, 프라그마틱 플레이 무료체험 메타, https://socialmediaentry.com/story3417385/Why-people-Don-t-care-about-pragmatic-korea, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 (bookmarkinginfo.com) linguistic expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for 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 a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be 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 social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine various issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.
A recent study employed a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 (this contact form) then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were 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 experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly, 프라그마틱 플레이 무료체험 메타, https://socialmediaentry.com/story3417385/Why-people-Don-t-care-about-pragmatic-korea, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 (bookmarkinginfo.com) linguistic expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for 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 a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
