A How-To Guide For Pragmatic From Beginning To End
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they had access to were crucial. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before 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 use two or more stages to influence social variables that affect 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 most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or 프라그마틱 순위 무료스핀 (https://arsenault-skov-2.blogbright.net/15-inspiring-facts-About-pragmatic-slots-Return-rate-that-you-never-Knew) not. Interviewees were also required 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 discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 프라그마틱 순위 L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. 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 adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors like relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they had access to were crucial. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before 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 use two or more stages to influence social variables that affect 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 most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or 프라그마틱 순위 무료스핀 (https://arsenault-skov-2.blogbright.net/15-inspiring-facts-About-pragmatic-slots-Return-rate-that-you-never-Knew) not. Interviewees were also required 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 discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 프라그마틱 순위 L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. 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 adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors like relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
- 이전글It's Enough! 15 Things About Jaguar Key Case We're Sick Of Hearing 24.10.16
- 다음글5 Tools That Everyone Working Involved In Pragmatic Official Website Industry Should Be Making Use Of 24.10.16
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.