The Best Place To Research Pragmatic Online
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has a few drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, like relationship benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important to study and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 체험, dig this, was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has a few drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, like relationship benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important to study and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 체험, dig this, was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
- 이전글5 Must-Know Practices For Realsexdolls In 2023 24.09.20
- 다음글You Will Meet The Steve Jobs Of The Short Length Beds For Adults Industry 24.09.20
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
