20 Pragmatic Websites Taking The Internet By Storm
페이지 정보
작성자 Tresa Sparkman 댓글 0건 조회 9회 작성일 24-09-28 04:54본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they were able to draw from were significant. RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their local professor relationship as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study many issues, 프라그마틱 체험 순위 - Click In this article - such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s 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. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as 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 levels. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. 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 preferred norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators develop 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 a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information, such as documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This 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 this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they were able to draw from were significant. RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their local professor relationship as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study many issues, 프라그마틱 체험 순위 - Click In this article - such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s 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. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as 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 levels. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. 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 preferred norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators develop 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 a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information, such as documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This 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 this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.