Pragmatic: Myths And Facts Behind Pragmatic
페이지 정보
작성자 Natisha 댓글 0건 조회 13회 작성일 24-09-27 06:02본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has a few drawbacks. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to 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 social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to examine various aspects, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For example, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 데모, click for source, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship advantages. They also discussed, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 무료스핀 - Read the Full Guide, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for 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 explore a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data like interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has a few drawbacks. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to 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 social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to examine various aspects, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For example, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 데모, click for source, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship advantages. They also discussed, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 무료스핀 - Read the Full Guide, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for 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 explore a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data like interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.