What Makes The Pragmatic So Effective? In COVID-19
페이지 정보
작성자 Aundrea Brittai…
작성일 24-10-14 05:53 조회 18회 댓글 0
작성일 24-10-14 05:53 조회 18회 댓글 0
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they were able to draw from were significant. 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 expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT, for 무료프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 (maps.google.Com.sa) example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and could result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
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 the test creators. They are not necessarily precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred 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 basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their 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, on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They outlined, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources like interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts 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. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they were able to draw from were significant. 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 expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT, for 무료프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 (maps.google.Com.sa) example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and could result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
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 the test creators. They are not necessarily precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred 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 basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their 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, on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They outlined, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources like interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts 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. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.