Pragmatic Tips From The Best In The Industry
페이지 정보
작성자Audrey 댓글댓글 0건 조회조회 17회 작성일 24-09-25 18:53본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they could draw on were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, 프라그마틱 체험 turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
Recent research used the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 프라그마틱 정품확인, blog post from Gogogobookmarks, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were examined 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 selections were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. 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 discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns 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 useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate 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 answers.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS, for example stated that 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 believed native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they could draw on were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, 프라그마틱 체험 turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
Recent research used the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 프라그마틱 정품확인, blog post from Gogogobookmarks, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were examined 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 selections were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. 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 discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns 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 useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate 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 answers.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS, for example stated that 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 believed native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
