10 Healthy Pragmatic Habits
페이지 정보
작성자 Melba Ruggles 댓글 0건 조회 7회 작성일 24-10-15 22:59본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances and learning-internal factors, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has some drawbacks. For example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 personal variations in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being 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. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study used a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, 프라그마틱 체험 such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider 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 even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 punishments they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will help them better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data like documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was built on 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 experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances and learning-internal factors, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has some drawbacks. For example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 personal variations in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being 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. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study used a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, 프라그마틱 체험 such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider 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 even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 punishments they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will help them better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data like documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was built on 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 experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.