Why Pragmatic Will Be Your Next Big Obsession
페이지 정보
작성자 Selina 작성일24-10-16 07:27 조회2회 댓글0건관련링크
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they had access to were important. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for 무료 프라그마틱 cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to 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 valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 more steps can be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to examine various aspects, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
Recent research has used the DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using several 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 either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, 프라그마틱 게임 personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, like relationship affordances. They also discussed, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. 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 could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based 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 deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which could be left out. It is also helpful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks 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 deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered 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 their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they had access to were important. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for 무료 프라그마틱 cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to 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 valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 more steps can be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to examine various aspects, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
Recent research has used the DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using several 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 either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, 프라그마틱 게임 personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, like relationship affordances. They also discussed, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. 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 could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based 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 deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which could be left out. It is also helpful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks 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 deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered 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 their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
