Five Pragmatic Projects To Use For Any Budget
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they were able to draw from were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or 슬롯 assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers understand 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to examine a variety of issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.
A recent study used the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing 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 found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship benefits. They described, for 프라그마틱 환수율 example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators develop better methods for 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses various sources of data like documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.
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 hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they were able to draw from were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or 슬롯 assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers understand 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to examine a variety of issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.
A recent study used the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing 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 found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship benefits. They described, for 프라그마틱 환수율 example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators develop better methods for 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses various sources of data like documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.
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 hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.
- 이전글강원도비아그라 24.11.01
- 다음글Title: Your Ultimate Guide to Result-Oriented Local SEO Strategies 24.11.01
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
