What Makes The Pragmatic So Effective? During COVID-19
페이지 정보
작성자 Bobby 댓글 0건 조회 6회 작성일 24-10-25 12:22본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection 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 key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important instruments for 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 무료 슬롯버프 (Https://Opensourcebridge.science/) Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, like relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results 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 reassess the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and 프라그마틱 슬롯 testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which could be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and 프라그마틱 추천 comprehension.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection 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 key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important instruments for 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 무료 슬롯버프 (Https://Opensourcebridge.science/) Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, like relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results 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 reassess the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and 프라그마틱 슬롯 testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which could be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and 프라그마틱 추천 comprehension.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.