What Is Pragmatic And How To Utilize It
페이지 정보
작성자 Patrick Frueh 작성일24-12-04 05:52 조회15회 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 were able to draw from were important. For instance, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Additionally the DCT can be biased and may lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, 프라그마틱 추천 and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research has used the DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, 무료 프라그마틱 and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 정품 (allbookmarking.com) multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources like interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in 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 topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with 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 choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that 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 were able to draw from were important. For instance, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Additionally the DCT can be biased and may lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, 프라그마틱 추천 and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research has used the DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, 무료 프라그마틱 and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 정품 (allbookmarking.com) multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources like interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in 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 topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with 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 choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.