Pragmatic Tools To Make Your Daily Life
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
A recent study utilized an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found 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 include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and 프라그마틱 정품인증 conventionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and 프라그마틱 무료체험 their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and 프라그마틱 무료체험 relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question with several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 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 in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this 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 personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may 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 norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to 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 strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called 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 particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
A recent study utilized an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found 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 include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and 프라그마틱 정품인증 conventionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and 프라그마틱 무료체험 their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and 프라그마틱 무료체험 relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question with several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 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 in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this 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 personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may 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 norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to 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 strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called 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 particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
- 이전글What The 10 Most Worst Sports Toto Latest Results Failures Of All Time Could Have Been Prevented 24.10.16
- 다음글15 Things You're Not Sure Of About Replacing A Window Handle 24.10.16
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.