An Guide To Pragmatic In 2024
페이지 정보
작성자Sunny 댓글댓글 0건 조회조회 9회 작성일 24-09-20 09:42본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, 슬롯 were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can be used to study the role 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 that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of 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 encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 (visit the next web page) such as DCTs, MQs, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either 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, on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship affordances. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method utilizes multiple data sources like interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, 슬롯 were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can be used to study the role 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 that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of 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 encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 (visit the next web page) such as DCTs, MQs, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either 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, on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship affordances. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method utilizes multiple data sources like interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.