What Experts In The Field Of Pragmatic Want You To Learn
페이지 정보
작성자 Amie 댓글 0건 조회 3회 작성일 24-09-27 04:54본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as 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 not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers warned 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, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and 프라그마틱 데모 made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for 프라그마틱 불법 reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 (check out this blog post via Ilovebookmarking) 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like interviews, observations, and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and 프라그마틱 환수율 LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For example, 프라그마틱 정품확인 TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as 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 not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers warned 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, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and 프라그마틱 데모 made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for 프라그마틱 불법 reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 (check out this blog post via Ilovebookmarking) 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like interviews, observations, and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and 프라그마틱 환수율 LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For example, 프라그마틱 정품확인 TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.