Which Website To Research Pragmatic Online
페이지 정보
작성자 Traci 댓글 0건 조회 5회 작성일 24-09-21 14:53본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They aren't always correct, 프라그마틱 슬롯 and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 환수율 무료체험 슬롯버프 (have a peek at these guys) their ongoing lives, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored 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 that 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, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Interviews with Refusal
The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to 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 were able to create patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources like interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and 프라그마틱 플레이 which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They aren't always correct, 프라그마틱 슬롯 and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 환수율 무료체험 슬롯버프 (have a peek at these guys) their ongoing lives, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored 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 that 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, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Interviews with Refusal
The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to 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 were able to create patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources like interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and 프라그마틱 플레이 which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.