Why Pragmatic Is Tougher Than You Imagine
페이지 정보
작성자 Christoper 작성일 24-10-19 06:48 조회 7 댓글 0본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they could draw on were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
A recent study utilized an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given various scenarios and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They may not be precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of 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 at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, 프라그마틱 순위 and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' practical choices. 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 using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case in a broader 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 the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural 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 attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic 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 the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they could draw on were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
A recent study utilized an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given various scenarios and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They may not be precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of 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 at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, 프라그마틱 순위 and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' practical choices. 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 using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case in a broader 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 the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural 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 attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic 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 the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.
댓글목록 0
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
