프로젝트 개요3 | The Little Known Benefits Of Pragmatic
페이지 정보
작성자 Muriel Steadman 작성일25-02-17 19:52 조회3회 댓글0건본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor 프라그마틱 슬롯 relationships as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior [empty] to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various aspects that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study used a DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, [Redirect Only] they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 정품확인 (Www.google.st) L2 pragmatic norms varied by 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 revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? 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. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. 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 over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. Furthermore this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based 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 the study showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor 프라그마틱 슬롯 relationships as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior [empty] to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various aspects that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study used a DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, [Redirect Only] they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 정품확인 (Www.google.st) L2 pragmatic norms varied by 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 revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? 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. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. 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 over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. Furthermore this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based 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 the study showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
