10 Ways To Build Your Pragmatic Empire
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and can 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 useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study used the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, 프라그마틱 무료게임 프라그마틱 무료체험 [https://www.pinterest.com/pastacloset6/] however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 traditionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated 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 level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. 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 showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question with several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data like documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and can 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 useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study used the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, 프라그마틱 무료게임 프라그마틱 무료체험 [https://www.pinterest.com/pastacloset6/] however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 traditionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated 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 level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. 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 showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question with several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data like documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.
- 이전글Choosing Poker Online 24.10.22
- 다음글수원강제추행변호사 24.10.22
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.