What Pragmatic Is Your Next Big Obsession?
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in 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 tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and 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. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For example, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 프라그마틱 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 (pop over to this website) in Situation 3 and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 정품 확인법 (just click the following website) 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each 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 recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of 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 investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources like documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in 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 tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and 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. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For example, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 프라그마틱 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 (pop over to this website) in Situation 3 and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 정품 확인법 (just click the following website) 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each 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 recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of 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 investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources like documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
- 이전글20 Fun Informational Facts About Bean Coffee Machine 24.09.28
- 다음글Wooden Treehouse Tools To Ease Your Daily Life 24.09.28
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.