Pragmatic Tips From The Best In The Business
페이지 정보
작성자 Allan 댓글 0건 조회 2회 작성일 24-11-05 06:59본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to not criticize a strict professor (see the second example).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has a few drawbacks. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 무료 - visit the up coming article, information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of a questionnaire or 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 are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and 프라그마틱 무료 transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "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 aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and 프라그마틱 순위 observations to confirm its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which are best left out. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based 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 revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to not criticize a strict professor (see the second example).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has a few drawbacks. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 무료 - visit the up coming article, information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of a questionnaire or 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 are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and 프라그마틱 무료 transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "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 aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and 프라그마틱 순위 observations to confirm its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which are best left out. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based 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 revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.