10 Healthy Habits For A Healthy Pragmatic
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has a few disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the 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 showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 dissociating from both L1 and 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 (https://techdirt.Stream/) L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was conducted 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 this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and perception of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has a few disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the 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 showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 dissociating from both L1 and 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 (https://techdirt.Stream/) L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was conducted 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 this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and perception of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.
- 이전글N사 비실명 ID 구매 24.11.10
- 다음글What Is The Best Place To Research ADHD Diagnosis Online 24.11.10
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
