How Pragmatic Propelled To The Top Trend In Social Media
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has a few disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and may result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
Recent research has used an DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
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 favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding process was iterative, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 (olivebookmarks.com) with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question by using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case 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 revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
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 third or second university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, 프라그마틱 환수율 each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has a few disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and may result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
Recent research has used an DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
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 favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding process was iterative, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 (olivebookmarks.com) with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question by using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case 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 revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
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 third or second university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, 프라그마틱 환수율 each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
- 이전글성인링크모음 ※링크나라※ 최신주소 야동사이트 세모링 24.11.13
- 다음글10 Things You've Learned About Preschool That Will Help You With Asbestos Exposure Mesothelioma 24.11.13
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.