What Is Everyone Talking About Pragmatic Right Now
페이지 정보
작성자 Tamika 작성일24-09-21 03:02 조회2회 댓글0건관련링크
본문
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 social ties they could draw on were crucial. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various aspects, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
Recent research has used the DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 (Conley-Murphy.Federatedjournals.Com) that their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees 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. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 슬롯 (read review) 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
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 study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker 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 social ties they could draw on were crucial. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various aspects, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
Recent research has used the DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 (Conley-Murphy.Federatedjournals.Com) that their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees 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. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 슬롯 (read review) 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
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 study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
