Pragmatic Tips From The Top In The Business
페이지 정보
작성자Milagro Baudine… 댓글댓글 0건 조회조회 49회 작성일 24-09-30 11:10본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 teaching.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or dissociating 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 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The central question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs intensive, 프라그마틱 슬롯 (https://bookmarkdistrict.com/) participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include 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 attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 teaching.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or dissociating 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 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The central question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs intensive, 프라그마틱 슬롯 (https://bookmarkdistrict.com/) participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include 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 attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
