The Top Pragmatic The Gurus Are Using 3 Things
페이지 정보
작성자 Angelica Ding 댓글 0건 조회 2회 작성일 24-11-12 17:30본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages however, it also has its drawbacks. The DCT for instance, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 cannot account cultural and individual variations. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
A recent study used an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 무료체험 their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, 프라그마틱 정품 which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and 프라그마틱 정품확인 MQs either in their L1 or 프라그마틱 게임 their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
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 so even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information including interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages however, it also has its drawbacks. The DCT for instance, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 cannot account cultural and individual variations. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
A recent study used an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 무료체험 their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, 프라그마틱 정품 which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and 프라그마틱 정품확인 MQs either in their L1 or 프라그마틱 게임 their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
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 so even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information including interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.