15 Inspiring Facts About Pragmatic You Didn't Know
페이지 정보
작성자 Stepanie 작성일 24-10-03 21:04 조회 6 댓글 0본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for 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 in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to examine various aspects, 프라그마틱 정품확인 including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
Recent research used a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as 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 think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, 프라그마틱 추천 무료 프라그마틱체험 (source web page) and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. 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 analyzed with 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 of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, like relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
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 are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
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 this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for 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 in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to examine various aspects, 프라그마틱 정품확인 including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
Recent research used a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as 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 think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, 프라그마틱 추천 무료 프라그마틱체험 (source web page) and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. 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 analyzed with 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 of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, like relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
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 are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
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 this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록 0
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.