Why Is This Pragmatic So Beneficial? During COVID-19
페이지 정보
작성자 Lakeisha 댓글 0건 조회 3회 작성일 24-12-19 22:20본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has some drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 turn-taking, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 이미지 - https://coolpot.stream, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research has used the DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess 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 revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing 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 coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea 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 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 help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, 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 were more likely to pick incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For 프라그마틱 정품 게임 (http://bbs.01bim.com/) example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has some drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 turn-taking, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 이미지 - https://coolpot.stream, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research has used the DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess 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 revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing 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 coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea 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 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 help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, 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 were more likely to pick incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For 프라그마틱 정품 게임 (http://bbs.01bim.com/) example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.