관련링크
The Reasons Pragmatic Is More Tougher Than You Think |
작성일24-11-07 06:58 |
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has a few drawbacks. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and 무료 프라그마틱 could result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to analyze various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners' speech.
Recent research has used an DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be correct, 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 DCTs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for 프라그마틱 슬롯 pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or 프라그마틱 dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
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 this even when they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and affordances. They outlined, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for 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 cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
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 multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include 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 achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors 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 personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has a few drawbacks. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and 무료 프라그마틱 could result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to analyze various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners' speech.
Recent research has used an DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be correct, 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 DCTs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for 프라그마틱 슬롯 pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or 프라그마틱 dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
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 this even when they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and affordances. They outlined, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for 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 cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
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 multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include 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 achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors 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 personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.