Your Family Will Thank You For Having This Pragmatic
페이지 정보
작성자 Jon 작성일 24-09-27 23:16 조회 4 댓글 0본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).
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 is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has a few drawbacks. For example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
Recent research used a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 데모 이미지 (learn more about images.google.com.na) ongoing lives, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs and 프라그마틱 무료체험 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 사이트 (go to Google) DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely 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' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after 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, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to think about 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 answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. They outlined, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research 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 support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).
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 is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has a few drawbacks. For example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
Recent research used a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 데모 이미지 (learn more about images.google.com.na) ongoing lives, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs and 프라그마틱 무료체험 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 사이트 (go to Google) DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely 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' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after 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, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to think about 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 answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. They outlined, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research 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 support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록 0
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
