The Lesser-Known Benefits Of Pragmatic
페이지 정보
작성자 Iona 작성일24-12-15 01:10 조회2회 댓글0건본문
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 relational affordances they could draw on were important. RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own 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 spoke of external factors, such as relationships and 슬롯 affordances. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to 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 an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources including documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they could draw on were important. RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own 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 spoke of external factors, such as relationships and 슬롯 affordances. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to 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 an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources including documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.