How A Weekly Pragmatic Project Can Change Your Life
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their decision to not criticize a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has some drawbacks. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and 무료 프라그마틱 can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or 프라그마틱 사이트 무료; Socialskates.com, more stages to influence 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 linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
Recent research has used a DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be accurate, and 프라그마틱 정품인증 they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if 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 could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, 프라그마틱 무료체험 leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs 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 attend a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. 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 affordances. They outlined, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the case 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 this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in 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 questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their decision to not criticize a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has some drawbacks. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and 무료 프라그마틱 can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or 프라그마틱 사이트 무료; Socialskates.com, more stages to influence 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 linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
Recent research has used a DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be accurate, and 프라그마틱 정품인증 they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if 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 could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, 프라그마틱 무료체험 leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs 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 attend a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. 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 affordances. They outlined, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the case 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 this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in 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 questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.
- 이전글The Top Media Wall Fire Place Gurus Do Three Things 24.10.15
- 다음글The right way to Become Higher With Poker High Stakes In 10 Minutes 24.10.15
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.