The Little-Known Benefits Of Pragmatic
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 factor 프라그마틱 환수율 in their decision to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has some drawbacks. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to examine a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research used an DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or 프라그마틱 정품 not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior 프라그마틱 in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by 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 the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one 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 process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, 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 native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
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 were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational advantages. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and 프라그마틱 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 technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, 프라그마틱 순위 which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 factor 프라그마틱 환수율 in their decision to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has some drawbacks. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to examine a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research used an DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or 프라그마틱 정품 not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior 프라그마틱 in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by 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 the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one 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 process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, 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 native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
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 were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational advantages. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and 프라그마틱 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 technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, 프라그마틱 순위 which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.