Five Pragmatic Lessons From Professionals
페이지 정보
작성자 Arnoldo Ponder 댓글 0건 조회 7회 작성일 24-10-20 08:39본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful 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 manipulate social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of 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, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and 프라그마틱 환수율 based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs 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 in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
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 despite the fact that they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors such as relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful 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 manipulate social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of 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, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and 프라그마틱 환수율 based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs 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 in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
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 despite the fact that they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors such as relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.