Why Everyone Is Talking About Pragmatic Right Now
페이지 정보
작성자 Leia 작성일25-01-10 13:51 조회84회 댓글0건관련링크
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and 라이브 카지노 information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge 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 study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent research study, 프라그마틱 사이트 슬롯 사이트; https://holmes-armstrong-3.hubstack.Net/, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 used 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 who participated in DCTs, 프라그마틱 무료체험 MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, 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, further reducing the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and 라이브 카지노 information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge 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 study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent research study, 프라그마틱 사이트 슬롯 사이트; https://holmes-armstrong-3.hubstack.Net/, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 used 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 who participated in DCTs, 프라그마틱 무료체험 MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, 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, further reducing the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
