10 Unexpected Pragmatic Tips
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has its disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study a variety of issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.
Recent research utilized an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They aren't always correct, 프라그마틱 정품인증 and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 무료체험 메타 (http://freeok.Cn) L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, like relational benefits. They outlined, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of 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 an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible 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 had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of 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 answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has its disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study a variety of issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.
Recent research utilized an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They aren't always correct, 프라그마틱 정품인증 and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 무료체험 메타 (http://freeok.Cn) L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, like relational benefits. They outlined, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of 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 an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible 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 had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of 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 answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
- 이전글15 Surprising Facts About Address Collection 24.11.23
- 다음글레비트라 후불제 칵스타효능, 24.11.23
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.