10 Unexpected Pragmatic Tips
페이지 정보
작성자 Horacio 작성일 24-11-01 23:05 조회 4 댓글 0본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or 프라그마틱 슬롯 more steps could be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine a variety of issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range 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 a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject 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 affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred 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 in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
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 multiple data sources including interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which could be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was conducted 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 susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or 프라그마틱 슬롯 more steps could be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine a variety of issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range 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 a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject 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 affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred 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 in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
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 multiple data sources including interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which could be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was conducted 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 susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록 0
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
