5 Pragmatic Lessons From The Professionals
페이지 정보
작성자 Jewell 작성일 25-01-25 16:44 조회 6 댓글 0본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some drawbacks. For example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody across 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 examine a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.
A recent study employed a DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests 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 of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data, such as documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help 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 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or 프라그마틱 게임 third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some drawbacks. For example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody across 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 examine a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.
A recent study employed a DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests 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 of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data, such as documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help 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 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or 프라그마틱 게임 third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
댓글목록 0
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.