10 Healthy Habits For Pragmatic
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they had access to were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
A recent study utilized the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 메타 (Lau-Whitfield.technetbloggers.De) video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they had access to were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
A recent study utilized the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 메타 (Lau-Whitfield.technetbloggers.De) video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
- 이전글10 Strategies To Build Your How To Install Ghost Immobiliser Empire 24.11.28
- 다음글The No. Question That Everyone In Asbestos Attorney In Virginia Should Be Able Answer 24.11.28
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.