What Is The Reason? Pragmatic Is Fast Increasing To Be The Trendiest T…
페이지 정보
작성자Ronnie 댓글댓글 0건 조회조회 13회 작성일 24-11-18 01:30본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they had access to were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 instance, the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study 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 that affect politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't 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 examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified 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 were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that 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 transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question by using various 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 either 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 follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
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 matter are crucial for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform such as 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 revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
Moreover, 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 their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 (Https://toplistar.com) understanding understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, 프라그마틱 추천 and so she was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they had access to were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 instance, the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study 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 that affect politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't 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 examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified 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 were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that 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 transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question by using various 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 either 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 follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
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 matter are crucial for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform such as 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 revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
Moreover, 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 their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 (Https://toplistar.com) understanding understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, 프라그마틱 추천 and so she was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
