Pragmatic Tips From The Best In The Industry
페이지 정보
작성자 Kandis Walston 작성일 25-01-24 00:25 조회 12 댓글 0본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 (firsturl.de) can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners speaking.
A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and 프라그마틱 순위 content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
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 promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and 프라그마틱 데모 a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 their ongoing life experiences as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given 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 was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, 프라그마틱 플레이 they were invited to 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. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors like relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method uses various sources of data, such as documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to study unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 (firsturl.de) can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners speaking.
A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and 프라그마틱 순위 content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
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 promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and 프라그마틱 데모 a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 their ongoing life experiences as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given 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 was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, 프라그마틱 플레이 they were invited to 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. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors like relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method uses various sources of data, such as documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to study unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록 0
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.