What Is Pragmatic And Why Is Everyone Talking About It?
페이지 정보
작성자 Tawnya Rodrigue… 댓글 0건 조회 6회 작성일 24-11-02 16:01본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences, 프라그마틱 체험 CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and 프라그마틱 the social ties they could draw on were crucial. RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, 프라그마틱 추천 it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
Recent research has used the DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They aren't always accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found 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' preference for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or 프라그마틱 슬롯 their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 understanding and perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal influences, 프라그마틱 체험 CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and 프라그마틱 the social ties they could draw on were crucial. RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, 프라그마틱 추천 it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
Recent research has used the DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They aren't always accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found 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' preference for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or 프라그마틱 슬롯 their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 understanding and perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.