Why Pragmatic Is The Right Choice For You?
페이지 정보
작성자 … 작성일 24-11-10 16:01 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 the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for 프라그마틱 체험 assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
A recent study used the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for 프라그마틱 무료스핀 reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had 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. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised 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 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 [https://pragmatickr64208.blogs-service.com/61423394/the-3-Largest-disasters-in-free-pragmatic-the-free-pragmatic-s-3-biggest-disasters-in-history] their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, 프라그마틱 슬롯 on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This concern was similar to the concerns 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 useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful 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 wider theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for 프라그마틱 체험 assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
A recent study used the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for 프라그마틱 무료스핀 reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had 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. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised 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 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 [https://pragmatickr64208.blogs-service.com/61423394/the-3-Largest-disasters-in-free-pragmatic-the-free-pragmatic-s-3-biggest-disasters-in-history] their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, 프라그마틱 슬롯 on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This concern was similar to the concerns 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 useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful 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 wider theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
댓글목록 0
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
