Pragmatic Tools To Facilitate Your Day-To-Day Life
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has some disadvantages. For instance the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study various issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners' speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually 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 are not necessarily correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, 프라그마틱 슬롯 and that their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a 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 after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or 프라그마틱 홈페이지 their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relationship benefits. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Furthermore, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's 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 investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies 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 personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has some disadvantages. For instance the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study various issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners' speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually 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 are not necessarily correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, 프라그마틱 슬롯 and that their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a 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 after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or 프라그마틱 홈페이지 their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relationship benefits. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Furthermore, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's 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 investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies 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 personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
- 이전글NJ Online Casino USA | Play Casino Games in New Jersey 24.10.13
- 다음글What Experts From The Field Of Where To Get Honda Key Cut Want You To Be Able To 24.10.13
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.