관련링크
20 Pragmatic Websites Taking The Internet By Storm |
작성일24-11-08 02:22 |
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has some drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬; Https://Timeoftheworld.Date, individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and may result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
Recent research utilized the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Interviews for 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners" and think they were 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 not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's 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 investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 추천 (Maps.Google.ae) understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has some drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬; Https://Timeoftheworld.Date, individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and may result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
Recent research utilized the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Interviews for 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners" and think they were 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 not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's 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 investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 추천 (Maps.Google.ae) understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.