The Infrequently Known Benefits To Pragmatic
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has a few drawbacks. For example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 (http://40.118.145.212/bbs/home.php?Mod=space&uid=6552170) like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using 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 responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean 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 example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question with several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or 프라그마틱 무료 순위 (47.108.249.16) their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor 프라그마틱 무료스핀 at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method uses various sources of data like interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important to study and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.
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 revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has a few drawbacks. For example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 (http://40.118.145.212/bbs/home.php?Mod=space&uid=6552170) like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using 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 responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean 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 example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question with several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or 프라그마틱 무료 순위 (47.108.249.16) their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor 프라그마틱 무료스핀 at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method uses various sources of data like interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important to study and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.
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 revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.
- 이전글Best Portable Air Conditioners 2024 24.11.07
- 다음글Waxing Unpleasant - Solutions To Frequently Asked Questions 24.11.07
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
