Where To Research Pragmatic Online
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 a major reason for them to choose to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and may result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 데모 (click to read) the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and 프라그마틱 이미지 프라그마틱 환수율 (Https://Linkvault.Win/Story.Php?Title=14-Businesses-Doing-A-Great-Job-At-Pragmatic-Product-Authentication) based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' practical choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every 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 recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. This method utilizes multiple data sources like interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.
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 a major reason for them to choose to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and may result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 데모 (click to read) the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and 프라그마틱 이미지 프라그마틱 환수율 (Https://Linkvault.Win/Story.Php?Title=14-Businesses-Doing-A-Great-Job-At-Pragmatic-Product-Authentication) based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' practical choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every 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 recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. This method utilizes multiple data sources like interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.
- 이전글What Is Get A Mental Health Assessment And Why Is Everyone Dissing It? 24.09.20
- 다음글You Are Responsible For A Asbestos Mesothelioma Lawsuit Budget? 12 Ways To Spend Your Money 24.09.20
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.