Why Everyone Is Talking About Pragmatic Right Now
페이지 정보
작성자 Leon Usher 댓글 0건 조회 5회 작성일 24-10-28 06:09본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal variations in communication. Additionally the DCT is susceptible to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 information structure, 프라그마틱 환수율 and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
A recent study used the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and 프라그마틱 불법 refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according 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 pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 MQs 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 disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean 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 technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information, such as documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which could be left out. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants of 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 attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal variations in communication. Additionally the DCT is susceptible to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 information structure, 프라그마틱 환수율 and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
A recent study used the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and 프라그마틱 불법 refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according 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 pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 MQs 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 disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean 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 technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information, such as documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which could be left out. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants of 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 attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.