관련링크
What Is Pragmatic And Why Is Everyone Talking About It? |
작성일24-10-04 02:54 |
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were crucial. RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 (linked here) the DCT is prone to bias and may lead to 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 can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 무료스핀 (Learn Even more) Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of various sources of data, such as documents, 프라그마틱 사이트 체험, linked here, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and 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 specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 understanding and understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were crucial. RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 (linked here) the DCT is prone to bias and may lead to 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 can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 무료스핀 (Learn Even more) Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of various sources of data, such as documents, 프라그마틱 사이트 체험, linked here, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and 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 specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 understanding and understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.