What Is Everyone Talking About Pragmatic Right Now
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has its disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Additionally the DCT can be biased and may result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable 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 can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate 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, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined 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 was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For example, 프라그마틱 환수율 슬롯 무료체험 (maps.google.ml) in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and 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, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 (www.scdmtj.com) they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible 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 also lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on 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 asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk 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 this.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has its disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Additionally the DCT can be biased and may result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable 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 can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate 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, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined 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 was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For example, 프라그마틱 환수율 슬롯 무료체험 (maps.google.ml) in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and 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, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 (www.scdmtj.com) they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible 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 also lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on 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 asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk 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 this.
- 이전글(ПОЛНОСТЬЮ) Зверопой 2 смотреть: онлайн 24.10.21
- 다음글қарызды өтеу үшін дұға ету - карыздан кутылу дугасы қарыздан құтылу дұғасы 24.10.21
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
