Find Out What Pragmatic Tricks The Celebs Are Utilizing
페이지 정보
작성자 Dieter 작성일24-09-27 22:41 조회4회 댓글0건관련링크
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for 프라그마틱 체험 cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
A recent study utilized an DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be accurate, and 프라그마틱 체험 (sources tell me) they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 Refusal Interviews. The 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 often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based 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 revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in 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 disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced 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) at their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for 프라그마틱 체험 cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
A recent study utilized an DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be accurate, and 프라그마틱 체험 (sources tell me) they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 Refusal Interviews. The 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 often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based 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 revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in 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 disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced 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) at their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
