Five Pragmatic Lessons From Professionals
페이지 정보
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they were able to draw from were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and 프라그마틱 무료게임 슬롯버프 (just click the following web site) the form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less 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, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs 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 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, like relationship benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform that is 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 highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 (just click the following web site) second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 understanding understanding of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they were able to draw from were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and 프라그마틱 무료게임 슬롯버프 (just click the following web site) the form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less 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, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs 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 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, like relationship benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform that is 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 highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 (just click the following web site) second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 understanding understanding of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.
- 이전글What Experts From The Field Want You To Know 24.09.20
- 다음글The No. One Question That Everyone Working In Buy Rabbit Vibrator Should Be Able Answer 24.09.20
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
