관련링크
15 Interesting Facts About Pragmatic That You Never Known |
작성일24-11-13 00:13 |
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, 프라그마틱 무료체험 but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study used an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 플레이 (https://bookmarkshut.Com/) their ongoing lives and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, 프라그마틱 데모 personalities, multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 and ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 like relationship affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Furthermore this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based 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 investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential 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 to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based 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 the study revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, 프라그마틱 무료체험 but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study used an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 플레이 (https://bookmarkshut.Com/) their ongoing lives and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, 프라그마틱 데모 personalities, multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 and ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 like relationship affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Furthermore this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based 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 investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential 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 to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based 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 the study revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.