The Best Place To Research Pragmatic Online
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has a few drawbacks. For instance the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 (https://bookmarks4.Men) research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from 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 their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be 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 the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and 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 in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs 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 patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and 프라그마틱 정품확인 cultural expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has a few drawbacks. For instance the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 (https://bookmarks4.Men) research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from 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 their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be 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 the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and 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 in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs 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 patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and 프라그마틱 정품확인 cultural expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.
- 이전글How to Strategic Social Media Marketing for Business Growth for Maximum Results 24.10.20
- 다음글This is Why 1 Million Customers In the US Are Daycare Near Me By State 24.10.20
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
