Why Pragmatic Is So Helpful During COVID-19
페이지 정보
작성자Santo 댓글댓글 0건 조회조회 3회 작성일 24-12-30 05:17본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has some drawbacks. For example, the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore, 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 추천 (pragmatic-korea33221.goabroadblog.com) the DCT is prone to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by 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 primary instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
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 was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 that their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to 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 preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question with various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and 프라그마틱 체험 punishments that they might be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing 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 investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has some drawbacks. For example, the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore, 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 추천 (pragmatic-korea33221.goabroadblog.com) the DCT is prone to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by 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 primary instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
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 was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 that their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to 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 preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question with various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and 프라그마틱 체험 punishments that they might be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing 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 investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
