It Is Also A Guide To Pragmatic In 2024
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.
Recent research has used an DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either 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, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, 프라그마틱 슬롯 as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, like relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow 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, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 슈가러쉬 (Https://Images.Google.Cf/) the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on 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 the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and 프라그마틱 슬롯 their perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.
Recent research has used an DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either 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, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, 프라그마틱 슬롯 as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, like relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow 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, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 슈가러쉬 (Https://Images.Google.Cf/) the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on 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 the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and 프라그마틱 슬롯 their perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
- 이전글ПОЛНОСТЬЮ: Головоломка 2 смотреть: полностью 24.10.28
- 다음글Penthouse Malaysia 24.10.28
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.