10 Unexpected Pragmatic Tips
페이지 정보
작성자 Kyle Esparza 작성일 25-02-11 10:49 조회 4 댓글 0본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they had access to were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study various issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be developed using 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 could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational affordances. They outlined, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the cultural and 프라그마틱 플레이 linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 penalties they could face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may remain 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 various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on 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 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore was reluctant 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 ask.
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they had access to were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study various issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be developed using 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 could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational affordances. They outlined, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the cultural and 프라그마틱 플레이 linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 penalties they could face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may remain 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 various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on 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 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore was reluctant 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 ask.
댓글목록 0
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.