Five Pragmatic Lessons Learned From Professionals
페이지 정보
작성자 Willy Dodge 댓글 0건 조회 7회 작성일 24-09-21 14:27본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has its drawbacks. For instance the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine various aspects, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, 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 that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and 프라그마틱 정품확인 discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational affordances. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and 슬롯 (link web site) Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 - https://bookmarktune.com/story18010362/10-healthy-habits-to-use-pragmatic-Free-trial, artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 데모 - see here, was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has its drawbacks. For instance the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine various aspects, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, 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 that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and 프라그마틱 정품확인 discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational affordances. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and 슬롯 (link web site) Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 - https://bookmarktune.com/story18010362/10-healthy-habits-to-use-pragmatic-Free-trial, artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 데모 - see here, was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.