Five Pragmatic Lessons Learned From Professionals
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they had access to were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal variations in communication. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 무료체험 메타 (bookmarkproduct.com) turn taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
Recent research utilized an DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and 프라그마틱 teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and 프라그마틱 무료 then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and 프라그마틱 카지노 RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their 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 responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, like relationship affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in the 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 to gain a better understanding of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable 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 accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they had access to were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal variations in communication. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 무료체험 메타 (bookmarkproduct.com) turn taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
Recent research utilized an DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and 프라그마틱 teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and 프라그마틱 무료 then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and 프라그마틱 카지노 RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their 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 responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, like relationship affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in the 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 to gain a better understanding of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable 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 accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
- 이전글Ten Best Crypto Online Casinos That Really Make Your Life Better 24.11.22
- 다음글조개파티 막힘 ※주소킹※ 시즌 사이트주소 세상의모든링크 24.11.22
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.