Your Family Will Be Thankful For Having This Pragmatic
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they could draw on were significant. RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance 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 should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners speaking.
Recent research used an DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, 프라그마틱 metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required 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. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and 프라그마틱 정품인증 슈가러쉬 (http://forum.ressourcerie.Fr/index.php?qa=user&qa_1=matheel54) L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and 프라그마틱 불법 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question by using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 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. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives 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 general understanding of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, 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 pick incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding perception of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS, for example stated that 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.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they could draw on were significant. RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance 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 should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners speaking.
Recent research used an DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, 프라그마틱 metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required 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. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and 프라그마틱 정품인증 슈가러쉬 (http://forum.ressourcerie.Fr/index.php?qa=user&qa_1=matheel54) L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and 프라그마틱 불법 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question by using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 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. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives 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 general understanding of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, 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 pick incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding perception of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS, for example stated that 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.
- 이전글Congratulations! Your Mefedron Sk Kriss Is About To Stop Being Relevant 24.11.10
- 다음글Descriptive essay on spiderman 24.11.10
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.