An Guide To Pragmatic In 2024
페이지 정보
작성자Danuta 댓글댓글 0건 조회조회 16회 작성일 24-10-05 15:29본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they could draw on were crucial. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. 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 can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study used an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, 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 to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of 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 were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 게임 (Bookmarks4.Men) consequences that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. Moreover it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of various sources of data including documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and 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 benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 정품확인방법; Deepzone says, were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they could draw on were crucial. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. 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 can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study used an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, 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 to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of 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 were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 게임 (Bookmarks4.Men) consequences that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. Moreover it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of various sources of data including documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and 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 benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 정품확인방법; Deepzone says, were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
