The Best Pragmatic Gurus Are Doing 3 Things
페이지 정보
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 relational affordances they could draw on were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example 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 example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 instance the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues such as politeness, 프라그마틱 순위 turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research used an DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal ability.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as 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 reflect on their evaluation and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Interviews with Refusal
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about 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% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, 프라그마틱 체험 as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors like relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and 프라그마틱 punishments they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the one 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 useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources like interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a departure 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 responses.
Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they could draw on were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example 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 example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 instance the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues such as politeness, 프라그마틱 순위 turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research used an DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal ability.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as 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 reflect on their evaluation and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Interviews with Refusal
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about 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% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, 프라그마틱 체험 as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors like relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and 프라그마틱 punishments they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the one 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 useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources like interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a departure 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 responses.
Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.
- 이전글What Diagnosis ADHD Is Your Next Big Obsession? 24.10.17
- 다음글Pragmatic Tips From The Best In The Industry 24.10.17
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
