관련링크
Pragmatic Tips From The Best In The Industry |
작성일24-10-03 04:28 |
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has a few drawbacks. For example, the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Additionally the DCT is susceptible to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "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 revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. They outlined, for instance, 프라그마틱 이미지 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 추천 (visit the following page) how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop 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 an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources including interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has a few drawbacks. For example, the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Additionally the DCT is susceptible to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "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 revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. They outlined, for instance, 프라그마틱 이미지 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 추천 (visit the following page) how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop 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 an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources including interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.