What Experts In The Field Of Pragmatic Want You To Know
페이지 정보
작성자 Nida Longmore 댓글 0건 조회 8회 작성일 24-09-25 06:30본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, 프라그마틱 이미지 RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has a few drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study utilized the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. 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 showed that CLKs often chose to defy 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 relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 (Https://Bookmarkmiracle.Com) DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to 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 from different companies. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed 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. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data like interviews, observations, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
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 this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
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 third or second year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, 프라그마틱 이미지 RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has a few drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study utilized the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. 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 showed that CLKs often chose to defy 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 relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 (Https://Bookmarkmiracle.Com) DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to 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 from different companies. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed 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. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data like interviews, observations, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
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 this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
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 third or second year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.