What Is Pragmatic And How To Use What Is Pragmatic And How To Use
페이지 정보
작성자 Hannah Roderic 댓글 0건 조회 4회 작성일 24-09-21 10:06본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they had access to were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For 프라그마틱 정품확인 (mouse click for source) example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating 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 can be a strength. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners' speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always correct, and they could be misleading about the way 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 via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, 프라그마틱 플레이 which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in 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, then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using 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 to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This concern was 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 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 슬롯 프라그마틱 체험 (https://gsean.lvziku.Cn) Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 a research method that employs deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information like interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
The first step in a case study is to clearly 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 are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they had access to were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For 프라그마틱 정품확인 (mouse click for source) example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating 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 can be a strength. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners' speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always correct, and they could be misleading about the way 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 via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, 프라그마틱 플레이 which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in 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, then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using 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 to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This concern was 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 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 슬롯 프라그마틱 체험 (https://gsean.lvziku.Cn) Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 a research method that employs deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information like interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
The first step in a case study is to clearly 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 are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.