Pragmatic Tips From The Best In The Business
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were important. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for 프라그마틱 추천 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. Its ability to use two or 슬롯 (Businessbookmark.com) more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 정품 (linkingbookmark.com) turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, 프라그마틱 무료게임 MQs, 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 were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which 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 are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic 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 Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were important. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for 프라그마틱 추천 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. Its ability to use two or 슬롯 (Businessbookmark.com) more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 정품 (linkingbookmark.com) turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, 프라그마틱 무료게임 MQs, 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 were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which 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 are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic 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 Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
- 이전글심인성발기부전 24.11.07
- 다음글What is a good cover letter 24.11.07
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
