How You Can Use A Weekly Pragmatic Project Can Change Your Life
페이지 정보
작성자 Shonda 댓글 0건 조회 4회 작성일 24-10-17 07:18본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, 프라그마틱 정품확인 it also has its drawbacks. The DCT, 프라그마틱 추천 for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 their ongoing lives, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. 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 showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and 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 (RIs)
The key question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational affordances. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
However, 프라그마틱 정품 the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators 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 uses numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a wider 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 experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, 프라그마틱 정품확인 it also has its drawbacks. The DCT, 프라그마틱 추천 for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 their ongoing lives, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. 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 showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and 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 (RIs)
The key question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational affordances. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
However, 프라그마틱 정품 the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators 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 uses numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a wider 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 experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and refused to 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.