The History Of Pragmatic In 10 Milestones
페이지 정보
작성자 Saundra 작성일 25-01-23 13:24 조회 7 댓글 0본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor 프라그마틱 정품 (see example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths, but it also has some drawbacks. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and may cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, 프라그마틱 무료체험 and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
Recent research utilized the DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared 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 conventionally indirect request forms, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics 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 examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in 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 transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental 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 first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked 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 over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, 프라그마틱 슬롯 like relational benefits. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for 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 an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four in 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 to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor 프라그마틱 정품 (see example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths, but it also has some drawbacks. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and may cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, 프라그마틱 무료체험 and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
Recent research utilized the DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared 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 conventionally indirect request forms, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics 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 examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in 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 transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental 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 first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked 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 over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, 프라그마틱 슬롯 like relational benefits. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for 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 an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four in 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 to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
댓글목록 0
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.