How Pragmatic Became The Top Trend In Social Media
페이지 정보
작성자 Abigail 댓글 0건 조회 3회 작성일 24-10-18 00:25본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various aspects such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners speaking.
A recent study employed a DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, 프라그마틱 정품 무료체험 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 (visit the following website) like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 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 the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had 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 listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and 무료 프라그마틱 complete the MQs in either 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, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a general knowledge 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 Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS for instance, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 claimed that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various aspects such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners speaking.
A recent study employed a DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, 프라그마틱 정품 무료체험 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 (visit the following website) like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 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 the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had 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 listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and 무료 프라그마틱 complete the MQs in either 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, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a general knowledge 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 Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS for instance, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 claimed that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.