Why Pragmatic Is Your Next Big Obsession?
페이지 정보
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they were able to draw from were significant. RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range 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 like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries 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 less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain 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 terms 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 korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 슬롯 무료 (talking to) the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and 프라그마틱 데모 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The central question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and 프라그마틱 정품 (https://lingeriebookmark.com/story7863884/how-pragmatic-slot-manipulation-has-transformed-my-life-the-better) MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed 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 useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies 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 kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, 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 tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they were able to draw from were significant. RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range 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 like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries 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 less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain 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 terms 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 korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 슬롯 무료 (talking to) the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and 프라그마틱 데모 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The central question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and 프라그마틱 정품 (https://lingeriebookmark.com/story7863884/how-pragmatic-slot-manipulation-has-transformed-my-life-the-better) MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed 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 useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies 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 kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, 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 tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
- 이전글20 Myths About French Door Fridge Freezer With Ice Maker: Dispelled 24.09.20
- 다음글The 10 Most Terrifying Things About 3 Wheel Buggy 24.09.20
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
