관련링크
Why Adding A Pragmatic To Your Life's Activities Will Make All The Cha… |
작성일24-11-10 11:43 |
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, 프라그마틱 슬롯 DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and 프라그마틱 무료게임 discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 like relationship advantages. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to create better methods for 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 strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources like interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily 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 for level 6 on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, 프라그마틱 슬롯 DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and 프라그마틱 무료게임 discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 like relationship advantages. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to create better methods for 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 strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources like interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily 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 for level 6 on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and would not 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.