The History Of Pragmatic In 10 Milestones
페이지 정보
작성자 Jacqueline 작성일 25-01-27 04:43 조회 3 댓글 0본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they could draw on were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has some drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for 프라그마틱 무료 collecting data.
DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question using various 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. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. Furthermore this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information, such as documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they could draw on were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has some drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for 프라그마틱 무료 collecting data.
DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question using various 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. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. Furthermore this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information, such as documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록 0
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.