Pragmatic Tools To Improve Your Life Everyday
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.
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 to use two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and 무료 프라그마틱 홈페이지 (Firsturl.de) include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either 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 situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.
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 to use two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and 무료 프라그마틱 홈페이지 (Firsturl.de) include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either 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 situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
