프로젝트 개요2 | 7 Useful Tips For Making The Most Out Of Your Pragmatic
페이지 정보
작성자 Denisha 작성일25-02-17 19:52 조회4회 댓글0건본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages however, it also has some drawbacks. For example the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to analyze various issues, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 게임 (Https://www.metooo.Co.uk/u/66e52b849854826D166b7491) including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing 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 language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
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, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. 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 found that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: [empty] Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, 프라그마틱 정품 the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea 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 an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages however, it also has some drawbacks. For example the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to analyze various issues, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 게임 (Https://www.metooo.Co.uk/u/66e52b849854826D166b7491) including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing 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 language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
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, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. 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 found that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: [empty] Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, 프라그마틱 정품 the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea 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 an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
