What Pragmatic Will Be Your Next Big Obsession
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research has used the DCT as tool to evaluate 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 authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 슬롯체험 (Lovebookmark.Date) traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, 프라그마틱 플레이 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 (Articlescad.Com) and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.
The results 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 is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading 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 toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs 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 situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. They outlined, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data including interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research has used the DCT as tool to evaluate 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 authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 슬롯체험 (Lovebookmark.Date) traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, 프라그마틱 플레이 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 (Articlescad.Com) and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.
The results 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 is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading 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 toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs 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 situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. They outlined, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data including interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
- 이전글Top Highstakes 777 Online Choices 24.11.24
- 다음글Comprehensive List Of Link Collection Dos And Don'ts 24.11.24
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.