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 learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has a few disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Additionally the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
Recent research used an DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, 프라그마틱 무료체험 including a questionnaire and 프라그마틱 무료체험 video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always correct, and 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For instance, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence 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 transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, 프라그마틱 무료체험 did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and 프라그마틱 사이트 linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This case 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 this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also 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 third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension 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 use when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has a few disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Additionally the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
Recent research used an DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, 프라그마틱 무료체험 including a questionnaire and 프라그마틱 무료체험 video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always correct, and 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For instance, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence 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 transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, 프라그마틱 무료체험 did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and 프라그마틱 사이트 linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This case 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 this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also 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 third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension 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 use when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
- 이전글बाइनरी विकल्प: The Google Technique 25.02.09
- 다음글Why You Should Focus On The Improvement Of Upvc Door Panel Replacement 25.02.09
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.