What Experts In The Field Of Pragmatic Want You To Know?
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has its drawbacks. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They may not be precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
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 requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' practical choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 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 preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 추천 (Www.1Moli.Top) discussed each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. 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 reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
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 create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, such as relational benefits. They outlined, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model 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 allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS for 프라그마틱 환수율 instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has its drawbacks. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They may not be precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
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 requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' practical choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 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 preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 추천 (Www.1Moli.Top) discussed each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. 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 reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
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 create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, such as relational benefits. They outlined, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model 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 allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS for 프라그마틱 환수율 instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
- 이전글Guide To Couch Beds For Sale: The Intermediate Guide For Couch Beds For Sale 24.10.28
- 다음글Основание Осман 169 серия с русским переводом смотреть онлайн 24.10.28
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
