10 Pragmatic Tips All Experts Recommend
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
A recent study used the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or 프라그마틱 정품확인 not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for 프라그마틱 환수율 choosing the pragmatic approach 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 use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for 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 L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked 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 CLKs, on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreigners" and think they were 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 preferred choice of 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 different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to 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 investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also helpful to review the existing research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform such as 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 the L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and asked to choose 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. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
A recent study used the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or 프라그마틱 정품확인 not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for 프라그마틱 환수율 choosing the pragmatic approach 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 use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for 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 L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked 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 CLKs, on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreigners" and think they were 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 preferred choice of 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 different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to 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 investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also helpful to review the existing research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform such as 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 the L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and asked to choose 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. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.
- 이전글25 Surprising Facts About Evolution Gaming 25.01.20
- 다음글17 Reasons You Shouldn't Not Ignore Evolution Baccarat Free Experience 25.01.20
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.