Five Pragmatic Lessons From The Pros
페이지 정보
작성자 Waylon Gula 작성일 25-01-28 02:01 조회 3 댓글 0본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they could draw on were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a major factor 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study utilized an DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was 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 recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics 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 analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational benefits. They described, 프라그마틱 환수율 for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations 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. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, 프라그마틱 불법 in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they could draw on were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a major factor 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study utilized an DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was 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 recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics 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 analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational benefits. They described, 프라그마틱 환수율 for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations 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. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, 프라그마틱 불법 in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.
댓글목록 0
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.