What Is The Reason? Pragmatic Is Fast Becoming The Hot Trend For 2024
페이지 정보
작성자Mitchell 댓글댓글 0건 조회조회 21회 작성일 24-09-29 16:27본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their decision to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and 프라그마틱 슬롯무료; homesite, that their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with 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 given situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently 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 led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or 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, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information including documents, interviews, and observations, to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For 프라그마틱 데모 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 슬롯버프 (https://thesocialvibes.com/) example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their decision to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and 프라그마틱 슬롯무료; homesite, that their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with 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 given situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently 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 led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or 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, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information including documents, interviews, and observations, to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For 프라그마틱 데모 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 슬롯버프 (https://thesocialvibes.com/) example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
