The Best Place To Research Pragmatic Online
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they could draw on were important. Researchers from TS & ZL, for 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 example, cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to examine a variety of issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 (Yogicentral.science) traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose 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 was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred 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 logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, 무료 프라그마틱 DCTs, and 프라그마틱 RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This is similar to that 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 a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop 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 employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data including interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they could draw on were important. Researchers from TS & ZL, for 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 example, cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to examine a variety of issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 (Yogicentral.science) traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose 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 was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred 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 logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, 무료 프라그마틱 DCTs, and 프라그마틱 RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This is similar to that 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 a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop 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 employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data including interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.
- 이전글The Rise of Live Webcam Chat 24.12.23
- 다음글Betting Techniques Sports 24.12.23
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.