Pragmatic Tools To Make Your Daily Life
페이지 정보
작성자Philomena 댓글댓글 0건 조회조회 3회 작성일 24-12-31 08:42본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the social ties they could draw on were significant. RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some drawbacks. For example, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and may cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools 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 evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.
Recent research used a DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 [Https://Humanlove.stream/] we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely 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' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or 프라그마틱 홈페이지 (Images.Google.Ad) L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature 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 could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
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 were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the social ties they could draw on were significant. RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some drawbacks. For example, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and may cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools 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 evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.
Recent research used a DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 [Https://Humanlove.stream/] we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely 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' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or 프라그마틱 홈페이지 (Images.Google.Ad) L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature 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 could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
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 were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
