What Is Pragmatic And Why Is Everyone Speakin' About It?
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has a few disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and 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 valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study used the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 무료게임; bbs.01Bim.com, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 (see here) data collection.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, 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. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and 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 first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at 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 concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators improve their methods of 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 an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information including interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important to study and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test 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, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and 프라그마틱 순위 she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has a few disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and 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 valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study used the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 무료게임; bbs.01Bim.com, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 (see here) data collection.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, 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. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and 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 first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at 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 concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators improve their methods of 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 an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information including interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important to study and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test 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, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and 프라그마틱 순위 she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
- 이전글10 Reasons Why People Hate Mesothelioma Mesothelioma 24.12.13
- 다음글The 9 Things Your Parents Teach You About Electric Wall Mounted Fire Place 24.12.13
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.