Five Pragmatic Lessons From The Professionals
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were significant. RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has its disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or 프라그마틱 무료 to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. They described, for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was 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 a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. Moreover, 프라그마틱 게임 (Maps.Google.Gg) this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews or 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also useful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
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 experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were significant. RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has its disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or 프라그마틱 무료 to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. They described, for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was 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 a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. Moreover, 프라그마틱 게임 (Maps.Google.Gg) this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews or 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also useful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
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 experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
- 이전글20 Tools That Will Make You Better At Slot 24.12.28
- 다음글From All Over The Web From The Web: 20 Awesome Infographics About Pragmatic Site 24.12.28
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.