What Is The Reason Pragmatic Is Right For You
페이지 정보
작성자 Aurora 작성일 24-10-16 16:37 조회 3 댓글 0본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learning-internal factors, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 슬롯 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 (bookmarkingdepot.com explained in a blog post) were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has its drawbacks. For example, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and 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 test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined 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, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative, 프라그마틱 무료게임 with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, like relationship benefits. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
However, the interviewees 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 interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. 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 risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources like documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also helpful to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong 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 reducing their quality of response.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learning-internal factors, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 슬롯 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 (bookmarkingdepot.com explained in a blog post) were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has its drawbacks. For example, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and 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 test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined 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, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative, 프라그마틱 무료게임 with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, like relationship benefits. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
However, the interviewees 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 interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. 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 risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources like documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also helpful to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong 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 reducing their quality of response.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.
댓글목록 0
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.