관련링크
10 Things People Get Wrong About The Word "Pragmatic." |
작성일24-10-05 10:46 |
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study 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 could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 플레이 (Telegra.Ph) their current life histories and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that 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. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 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. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider 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 even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, 프라그마틱 순위 무료 - mark-franks.technetbloggers.de - such as relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 penalties that they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic 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 consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research 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 the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.
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 this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study 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 could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 플레이 (Telegra.Ph) their current life histories and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that 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. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 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. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider 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 even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, 프라그마틱 순위 무료 - mark-franks.technetbloggers.de - such as relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 penalties that they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic 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 consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research 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 the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.
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 this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.