5 Pragmatic Projects That Work For Any Budget
페이지 정보
작성자Brigida 댓글댓글 0건 조회조회 4회 작성일 24-12-13 06:27본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 could lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine various aspects, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, 프라그마틱 체험 however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 and relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. Furthermore it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for research and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, 프라그마틱 무료체험 pragmatic awareness, understanding and understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 could lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine various aspects, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, 프라그마틱 체험 however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 and relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. Furthermore it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for research and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, 프라그마틱 무료체험 pragmatic awareness, understanding and understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
