"A Guide To Pragmatic In 2024
페이지 정보
작성자 Lizzie 댓글 0건 조회 3회 작성일 24-09-23 15:42본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they had access to were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set 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 that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 무료게임 (https://www.google.co.bw/url?q=https://articlescad.com/10-things-you-learned-in-kindergarden-that-will-help-you-get-pragmatic-genuine-54322.html) traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 추천 [mouse click on nerdgaming.science] recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research attempted to answer this question with several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, such as relational benefits. For 프라그마틱 홈페이지 instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they might face when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on 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 to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they had access to were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set 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 that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 무료게임 (https://www.google.co.bw/url?q=https://articlescad.com/10-things-you-learned-in-kindergarden-that-will-help-you-get-pragmatic-genuine-54322.html) traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 추천 [mouse click on nerdgaming.science] recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research attempted to answer this question with several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, such as relational benefits. For 프라그마틱 홈페이지 instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they might face when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on 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 to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.