What Is Pragmatic And How To Use What Is Pragmatic And How To Use
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and 프라그마틱 환수율 the social ties they were able to draw from were important. RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody across 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 analyze various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
Recent research utilized a DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for 프라그마틱 linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. 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, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. They also discussed, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior 프라그마틱 of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in the 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 study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing 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 year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and 프라그마틱 환수율 the social ties they were able to draw from were important. RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody across 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 analyze various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
Recent research utilized a DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for 프라그마틱 linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. 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, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. They also discussed, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior 프라그마틱 of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in the 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 study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing 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 year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.
- 이전글10 Things That Everyone Is Misinformed About The Word "Pragmatic Slots Return Rate" 25.02.06
- 다음글R S Bharati:'Governor Is Behaving In A Silly Manner' 25.02.06
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
