Ten Ways To Build Your Pragmatic Empire
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating 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 role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, 프라그마틱 플레이 DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.
Recent research has used the DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, 프라그마틱 환수율 (https://maps.google.gg/) such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 and their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 (glamorouslengths.com) instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Interviews with Refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question 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. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
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 create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating 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 role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, 프라그마틱 플레이 DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.
Recent research has used the DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, 프라그마틱 환수율 (https://maps.google.gg/) such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 and their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 (glamorouslengths.com) instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Interviews with Refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question 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. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
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 create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
- 이전글A Step-By-Step Guide To Choosing The Right Shop Anal Sex Toys 24.09.17
- 다음글4d Result Sport Toto: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly 24.09.17
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.