관련링크
5 Pragmatic Projects For Every Budget |
작성일24-11-01 07:23 |
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they could draw on were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 정품 Z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was 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 move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or 프라그마틱 홈페이지 L2 levels. 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 follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and 프라그마틱 이미지 (https://pragmatic-kr42086.mybjjblog.com) Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they could draw on were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 정품 Z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was 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 move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or 프라그마틱 홈페이지 L2 levels. 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 follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and 프라그마틱 이미지 (https://pragmatic-kr42086.mybjjblog.com) Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.