Why Pragmatic Is Your Next Big Obsession?
페이지 정보
작성자 Jeannette 댓글 0건 조회 3회 작성일 24-11-09 23:17본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs 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 criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and may result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior 프라그마틱 이미지 of communication learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for 프라그마틱 이미지 more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge 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. 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 their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either 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 situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. In addition, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 linguistic norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in 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 consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. This method makes use of various sources of data like interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs 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 criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and may result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior 프라그마틱 이미지 of communication learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for 프라그마틱 이미지 more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge 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. 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 their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either 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 situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. In addition, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 linguistic norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in 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 consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. This method makes use of various sources of data like interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.