관련링크
10 Pragmatic Tricks All Experts Recommend |
작성일24-10-11 09:34 |
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity 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 reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has some disadvantages. For 프라그마틱 정품인증 example the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or 프라그마틱 순위 to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. 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, 프라그마틱 이미지 did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. They outlined, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and 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' awareness and capacity 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 reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has some disadvantages. For 프라그마틱 정품인증 example the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or 프라그마틱 순위 to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. 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, 프라그마틱 이미지 did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. They outlined, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and 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.