Five Pragmatic Lessons From Professionals
페이지 정보
작성자 Valerie Funk 댓글 0건 조회 6회 작성일 24-09-17 07:30본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the social ties they had access to were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths however, it also has its disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and may lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can be used 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 various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research utilized a DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. 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 should include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, 프라그마틱 순위 and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 their relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent 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 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Furthermore this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based 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 method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also useful to read the research to gain a broad 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 benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the social ties they had access to were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths however, it also has its disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and may lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can be used 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 various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research utilized a DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. 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 should include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, 프라그마틱 순위 and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 their relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent 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 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Furthermore this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based 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 method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also useful to read the research to gain a broad 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 benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.