A Reference To Pragmatic From Beginning To End
페이지 정보
작성자Ned Pidgeon 댓글댓글 0건 조회조회 4회 작성일 24-12-15 17:33본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major reason for them to choose to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers warned, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing 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 through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior 프라그마틱 정품확인 in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed 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 of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 조작 - www.E10100.Com, 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and 프라그마틱 무료 MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This is similar 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 still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major reason for them to choose to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers warned, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing 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 through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior 프라그마틱 정품확인 in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed 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 of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 조작 - www.E10100.Com, 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and 프라그마틱 무료 MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This is similar 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 still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
