Your Family Will Be Thankful For Having This Pragmatic
페이지 정보
작성자 Lolita 댓글 0건 조회 4회 작성일 24-12-12 14:18본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important 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 advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for 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 revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 사이트 (https://bookmarks4.men) their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 정품확인방법 (https://Informatic.wiki/wiki/Why_Pragmatic_Experience_Could_Be_Greater_Dangerous_Than_You_Think) leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 - Www.Google.Co.Ck - departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every 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, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced 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 tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate 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 in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four in 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 respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important 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 advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for 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 revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 사이트 (https://bookmarks4.men) their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 정품확인방법 (https://Informatic.wiki/wiki/Why_Pragmatic_Experience_Could_Be_Greater_Dangerous_Than_You_Think) leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 - Www.Google.Co.Ck - departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every 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, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced 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 tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate 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 in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four in 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 respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.