10 Healthy Habits For Pragmatic
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
Recent research used the DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for 프라그마틱 순위 collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and 프라그마틱 환수율 conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted 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. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, 프라그마틱 체험 순위 (Git.Baihand.com) as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors such as relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and 프라그마틱 무료체험 consequences that they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. 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 norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical 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 is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data, such as documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is 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 revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
Recent research used the DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for 프라그마틱 순위 collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and 프라그마틱 환수율 conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted 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. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, 프라그마틱 체험 순위 (Git.Baihand.com) as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors such as relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and 프라그마틱 무료체험 consequences that they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. 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 norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical 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 is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data, such as documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is 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 revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
- 이전글What NOT To Do In The Ceramic Chiminea Industry 25.02.11
- 다음글Slot Agent 9732784381233988437 25.02.11
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.