Five Pragmatic Lessons From Professionals
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and 프라그마틱 순위 capacity to draw on relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or 프라그마틱 무료체험 more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
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 examine various issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
A recent study utilized the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They are not necessarily precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses 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 examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, 프라그마틱 무료 as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer 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 on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 프라그마틱 플레이 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could be subject to if they violated 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 the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators create 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 study a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and 프라그마틱 순위 capacity to draw on relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or 프라그마틱 무료체험 more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
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 examine various issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
A recent study utilized the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They are not necessarily precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses 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 examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, 프라그마틱 무료 as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer 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 on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 프라그마틱 플레이 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could be subject to if they violated 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 the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators create 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 study a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
- 이전글Will Treatment Of Adult ADHD Never Rule The World? 24.10.15
- 다음글Why Audi Car Key Is Still Relevant In 2023 24.10.15
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.